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.)

When the time comes to implement a strategic plan, or simply to faithfully perform the work of a diocese, this is how I believe the different actors should perform their roles and invest their resources.

The Role of Management, and especially of the Bishop is to constantly preach the Strategic Plan or its equivalent, that is to say the diocese’s incarnation of the Gospel; to teach the leaders and members of the diocese how to implement the plan, and to transmit what has been learned so far; and to provide encouragement, hope and inspiration.

Diocesan Resources: These should all be channelled to reinforce and accomplish the mission of the diocese as defined by the Strategic Plan. They should be used exclusively for these purposes. All of the rewards and incentives of the organisation, and all of the investments and disinvestments which are made, should be calculated to reinforce the accomplishment of the Strategic Plan.

Leadership: This is the responsibility of all members of the diocese, each in different ways and using their different gifts in different contexts, from the youngest Sunday School member of the smallest congregation to the Bishop. Everyone must exercise their own leadership in their own place, according to their ability.

Learning must be continuous and oriented to strengthening the accomplishment of the Strategic Plan. Everyone responsible for the Plan should share in this learning, but especially Diocesan Council, Management, the front-line clergy and the members of congregations.

The Bishop, the Diocesan Executive Officer and the rest of Management must not get too far ahead of the rest of the clergy and members of the diocese. In other words, the Plan must be implemented fast enough without being so fast that we create resistance, and slow enough without being so slow that we lose momentum.

Currently, nobody knows how to revitalize a diocese except God alone; all of the best and the brightest are only just collecting clues and indicators; therefore we must try to learn from everyone with something to teach, and decide how to apply those tools (or not) in our own context, to the best of our informed judgment. We will often fail, but that will not defeat us!

Lest anyone complain, let me say it first: I am not a professional ecclesiologist! On the other hand, I hope this might be a helpful reframing of some of the aspects of the work of the diocese in the mission of the Church.

Work of the Diocese: The essential work of the diocese is congregational development, encouraging and enabling congregations and helping them to become more effective and faithful in carrying out the Gospel of Jesus Christ as understood by the Bishop and Synod in their day and age. (This was first stated, to my knowledge, by Robert Gallagher of the Church Development Institute).

Strategic Plan of the Diocese: This is a roadmap for accomplishing the Gospel mission of the diocese, owned by the Synod and Bishop, delegated to be under the responsibility of Diocesan Council, championed and implemented by Management. The Plan should be refined and modified regularly on the basis of the learnings that are made during implementation. (If your diocese has not embarked on a process like this, I strongly recommend it; I have promised a link to the church strategic planning processes I know of...someday).

Every Plan Must have Measurable Objectives so that Diocesan Council can know that it is being successfully accomplished, so that Management can be intelligently supervised and so that Management, Synod Council and Synod can all learn from the results of their efforts (i.e. what works and what doesn’t). The same should be true for parish action plans, so that diocesan resources are fairly and appropriately allocated.

The Strategic Plan must have legitimacy, as must the implementation process, and thus it must continually be taught to and validated by Diocesan Council and Synod.

Stewardship is a crucial tool for translating the Strategic Plan, because it helps the diocese to connect the Plan into the prime values of its members: their time, their abilities, and their money.

The Real (as opposed to Ideal) Mission of the Diocese is revealed by the issues which claim the time, budget and attention of Management, clergy and members. When an organisation is really committed to a Strategic Plan and to accomplishing it, they show real discipline and will probably be accused of being “obsessed” with it. Nonetheless, because the Plan has legitimacy, as a document built with a wide participation and voted on by Synod, those who oppose its implementation have a means of legitimately opposing it through motions at Synod, where issues of real values and real mission can be debated publicly.

Because of the ambiguity present in the Anglican Church today, and because of the varying responses that have been made within the Church to this situation, I have taken the time to outline below the definitions I use for significant terms.

Very little of what follows is “set in stone”, the list is certainly incomplete, and most items will require some improvement and fine-tuning. I apologize to non-Anglicans for what may seem to be my narrow focus. At the same time, I hope that you will be able to "translate" the concepts into your own context, so as to assess their worth.

Management Language: This is NOT the language of Business (although they were the first to use it), but rather the language of all organisations with a mission, and which are held accountable for accomplishing that mission

Anglican Governance: Anglican dioceses are bodies that have one Head (Jesus Christ) embodied in two heads: the Bishop and the Synod, therefore Anglicans tend to speak of being “episcopally led and synodically governed”.

Synod: These are the members and “owners” of the diocese, similar to the shareholders of a corporation. They constitute one of the “heads” of the diocese, with specific rights and responsibilities. (Technically, Synod includes the Bishop, so both of the heads are in fact present). I am told that the historical source for this body in the Canadian church and its constitution is in fact the Canadian or British Parliament, but I do not believe that this modifies the basic role of ownership or final responsibility.

Synod Council or Diocesan Council or Diocesan Executive: This is effectively the Board of Directors of the Diocese, because it is responsible for the affairs of Synod between its meetings, and includes the Bishop.

Diocesan Management Structure (“Management”): These are the people charged with the responsibility for carrying out the mission of the diocese. They are accountable for this to Diocesan Council. As I understand it they include primarily the Bishop, who then delegates certain responsibilities and authorities to the Executive Officer and Archdeacons (plus perhaps the Financial and Stewardship Officers, depending on their roles). Like the CEO of any charitable organisation, the Bishop is accountable for his/her effectiveness in carrying out the diocesan mission, and those to whom the Bishop delegates responsibility are responsible in turn to him/her.

Clergy: These are the primary “managers” of the localized mission of the diocese, exercising a ministry “that is mine and thine” with the Bishop (to quote from the BCP induction service), in cooperation with the lay leadership of their congregation(s).

Congregations: These are the “store fronts”, the “local service centres”, or the “motors of production” of the diocese, where the real work of ministry is done. Congregations are made up of four kinds of people: members, donors, staff (paid and volunteer) and beneficiaries, and any one person can fit within one or more kinds at any one time, and usually does. (The same is probably true of the diocese, if a beneficiary can include either a member of a parish or a recipient of ministry via a diocesan special ministry). Among the most important characteristics of congregations are that they are Spirit-empowered, worshipping, disciple-making and serving communities.

Special Ministries: These are non-congregational ministries that belong to the diocese or at least are exercised under the oversight of the Bishop. They tend to provide a ministry or service that is better done by a group of congregations rather than by any one congregation. They have some of the aspects of a congregation, usually being Spirit-empowered and serving organisations, and sometimes being worshipping, disciple-making communities.

Understanding the situation of a congregation or a set of congregations in a region in order to create a valid Balanced Scorecard requires a Cause and Effect analysis of the components or actions which lead to the desired results. This analysis is likely to be different in a different region, but I suspect that the core concepts are similar enough that it is worth sharing here. This cause and effect diagram is at least valid in the Laurentian Deanery of the Diocese of Montréal, but likely applies to most of the other congregations in the diocese. You can tell me if it applies to your situation.

1. Primary strategic activities are indicated in a heavy solid outline, and secondary activities are in dashed lines
2. Activity in each of the four main areas of the Scorecard is indicated with a separate colour; a general “summary” label is added in purple to describe some of the groups of activities (this is not a formal part of the Scorecard, but provides a useful summary of the general objectives and values of the project).
3. The starting point, and continual source of refreshment is our God-inspired, shared vision of the future, often expressed in mission planning, and regularly refreshed in Ministry Review activities (both self-review and evaluation by others; at the bottom of the diagram)
4. The “core business” of Christian churches is the creation and support of spiritually alive and faithful disciples of Jesus Christ. One of the prime vehicles for this is worship services and fellowship that nourishes people (both members and visitors). As we show in this diagram, Adult Groups for faith-sharing and faith-education are an important component in making disciples and in making the worship and fellowship more meaningful: Christianity is not a Sunday-only activity!
5. The worship and fellowship experience is influenced by several important factors including the Organisational Climate in the congregation and the Pastoral Care of Members. Given what we consider to be the generally mixed quality of Anglican worship and preaching, we expect that Leadership Training will be an important factor in making this vital component as effective as it should be.
   
6. We believe that Numbers of Visitors is a direct result of Nourishing Worship and Fellowship; in other words, when a congregation’s Sunday fellowship is dynamic and nourishing, people in the community hear of it. Then, if they or someone they know has a spiritual hunger, they are more inclined to attend. Attendance is also influenced by Building Maintenance, in that well-kept facilities attract people, and run-down ones encourage them to stay away. Finally, the number of visitors can undoubtedly also be increased by active and sensitive marketing efforts, which begin to be worth pursuing when we are sure that the quality of what we have to offer is acceptable.
   
7. The only way to get sustained attendance growth and new members is to have a good stream of visitors, both in total (‘raw” numbers) and in numbers of visitors who live or vacation regularly in the area (“with potential”). From a large stream, some of whom have the potential to become members, some smaller number will continue attending and eventually become members, but only if the congregation has Good Welcoming Skills and, crucially, the Willingness to Incorporate new people into their fellowship.
8. New Donors (at least serious donors, with High Average Donations and a higher number of Proportional Donors) are the product of having developed new members, to which is added an appropriate process of Stewardship Education, including talking specifically about money (which is just another aspect of honest Christian disciple-making).
9. Good numbers of good donors, who have also considered seriously the question of legacies and gifts, are the only reliable way to get to Healthy Finances. That in turn, is the only responsible way to produce Increased Ministry Spending, greater Generosity and Outreach to the Needy, Sufficient Staff (paid and volunteer), and more than a minimum payment for clergy.
10. Pastoral Care of Members is not highlighted and is not considered a Primary Strategic Activity, because it is already so firmly anchored in the culture of the Anglican Church. If anything, our over-focus on caring for those on the inside will likely have to be sacrificed somewhat in order that we can care for those on the fringes of our community.
11. Readers will have noticed, of course, that all of the factors identified on this chart are measurable; only the ones which we consider to be critical success factors are indicated; and every one is subject to ongoing review as we go along, and to being replaced by better or more relevent measures as we learn how to do this work better.
    

There are two key benefits from taking a Balanced Scorecard approach. The first, which I will present in a later post (link), is that it forces us to think in terms of cause and effect: which key measurable activities are causes or at least predictors of the desired finalities? Secondly, it produces a healthy, balanced set of benefits. By contrast, putting the emphasis solely upon giving might produce good financial numbers but neglect the quality of worship or outreach. A "crass consumerist" approach, which worries so many in the mainline churches when they think about "seeker services", might conceivably boost attendance at the expense of watering down the faith.

In the example presented here, the results of our plan to revitalize the Laurentian Deanery should lead to largely positive outcomes in each of the four areas. Here are a few of the highlights:

1. Internal Organisational Functioning: The principle increases should come in the area of improving the organisational climate of each of the congregations. This will be achieved through the promotion of a clear, positive, do-able vision and significantly increased leader training (as well as a process of on-going evaluation). The commitment of congregations to welcoming newcomers will be verifiably strong.
   
2. Learning and Growth in Faith: More than three quarters of the number of attendees will be in small groups for faith-sharing and adult Christian education; this can't help but increase the dynamism of people's faith lives and boost the relevance of Sunday worship. We will regularly be investing significant amounts of time in visioning or mission planning, as well as in evaluating the effectiveness of our ministries and providing stewardship education.
3. Worship and New Members: Sunday worship services are where we meet potential new members and show them the goodness and the power of God (including what he has done to change our lives). Here we expect to see improvements in the quality of preaching and worship, large numbers of new visitors (see the subsequent post on the three kinds of visitors), significant numbers of new members and new commited donors, and an attendance rate that has doubled. We can also predict that the regularity with which people attend will likely have dropped, as we move from having mostly "the oldest and most faithful members" to having a mix of newcomers and oldtimers.
4. The rate of givings by committed givers will have risen, as will the average identified donation, and more of our members will be contributing aconsciously selected percentage of their income. More congregations will have surpluses, and savings and endowments will have risen.

We think that results such as these are what should be expected (without any magical thinking!) from applying a well-reasoned, planful approach to congregational management. We also take for granted that such an approach needs to be surrounded by prayer, and led, in the particulars, by sensitive listening for the Spirit's leading. In fact, we have already found that raising questions of cause and effect is prompting our leaders to propose specific times of prayer for their ministries.

There will be other positive side-effects, as well: clergy and lay leader attitudes and hopefulness should have improved dramatically as they regain a sense of their ability to influence their results and grow in skillfulness; the deanery will have become a cooperative unit, sharing funding on projects of mutual interest ( for example publicity, social action, youth ministries, large-scale rallies, and perhaps even new initiatives or church planting); the diocese's income will go up as congregational revenues go up; it will be much easier to recruit and retain highly competent clergy; and the "buzz" of taking a new approach to Christian ministry will attract those who wouldn't have given the Church the time of day.

There will also be negative consequences, which we are planning for in order to minimize their impact. If the rest of the diocese (or at least the Bishop) is not firmly on board, there will be conflicts and some undermining of our efforts. Undoubtedly, if this has any spiritual reality, there will be significant trials and temptations. Some will suspect that this is just another "top down", authoritarian approach, merely a "cash grab". There will be long and often obscure debates on the theology behind clarifying the organisational structure and the flow of accountability and responsibility....