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.)
- 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.)
Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Definitions--Governance and Structure
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.
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.
Comments:
<< Home
(Copied from email correspondance with permission). I have had a chance to look over your work and have a few questions. I am technologically challenged so was unable to use the blog response.
Who is it designed for? Congregational leaders, clergy, Diocesan Council, etc? Its style is not too lay-friendly - it is quite "technical", so it might not connect with the person in the pew or even congregational leadership. Plus, it is strong on analysis and appears weak on solutions.
It is also heavily weighted on structure - for example, in the section "Why are congregations weak" the items listed are predominantly organizational. Obviously that aspect does have a major impact, however, having seen our situation here and looked at the similarities and differences with Montreal, I feel that attitudes are crucial (as I pointed out in my thesis!). Attitudes include spiritual as well as psychological. Examples of the former would be: do we expect God to work; are we eager that his mission be accomplished; do we have a concern for the lost; etc. Psychological attitudes are more nuanced and less-easy to detect: e.g. does a congregation insist on doing things they way they feel comfortable with and don't consider those of a different background, age level or cultural ethos? This does not imply malice, but more blindness; in some cases, it might also indicate reluctance to "let go" of the familiar. I feel that is more prevalent in a situation where there are other threats (e.g. the Anglo exodus in Quebec, declining rural life in the west, etc.).
As a further example of the psychological, at St. Aidan's, there ahs been a decline in our "contemporary service" (largely baby-boomers, people affected by the charismatic renewal of the 70's and 80's, who don't like hymns or organ music, etc.) and a growth in our "blended service" (rock band and robed choir) - the later is now twice the former and full of younger families, teenagers, young adults and some oldsters, too. The baby-boomers are having a hard time realizing that preferences and approaches have changed. What they once saw as being new and cutting edge no longer is. They need a change in attitude in order to reach out to those different from themselves.
I hope these comments are helpful. I'm sorry if I don't sound too enthusiastic, but your approach seems to be missing out on some major factors. Please feel to correct me or point out where I have misunderstood as I was not able to spend too much time digesting everything thoroughly.
Who is it designed for? Congregational leaders, clergy, Diocesan Council, etc? Its style is not too lay-friendly - it is quite "technical", so it might not connect with the person in the pew or even congregational leadership. Plus, it is strong on analysis and appears weak on solutions.
It is also heavily weighted on structure - for example, in the section "Why are congregations weak" the items listed are predominantly organizational. Obviously that aspect does have a major impact, however, having seen our situation here and looked at the similarities and differences with Montreal, I feel that attitudes are crucial (as I pointed out in my thesis!). Attitudes include spiritual as well as psychological. Examples of the former would be: do we expect God to work; are we eager that his mission be accomplished; do we have a concern for the lost; etc. Psychological attitudes are more nuanced and less-easy to detect: e.g. does a congregation insist on doing things they way they feel comfortable with and don't consider those of a different background, age level or cultural ethos? This does not imply malice, but more blindness; in some cases, it might also indicate reluctance to "let go" of the familiar. I feel that is more prevalent in a situation where there are other threats (e.g. the Anglo exodus in Quebec, declining rural life in the west, etc.).
As a further example of the psychological, at St. Aidan's, there ahs been a decline in our "contemporary service" (largely baby-boomers, people affected by the charismatic renewal of the 70's and 80's, who don't like hymns or organ music, etc.) and a growth in our "blended service" (rock band and robed choir) - the later is now twice the former and full of younger families, teenagers, young adults and some oldsters, too. The baby-boomers are having a hard time realizing that preferences and approaches have changed. What they once saw as being new and cutting edge no longer is. They need a change in attitude in order to reach out to those different from themselves.
I hope these comments are helpful. I'm sorry if I don't sound too enthusiastic, but your approach seems to be missing out on some major factors. Please feel to correct me or point out where I have misunderstood as I was not able to spend too much time digesting everything thoroughly.
# posted by 
: 10:48 AM
: 10:48 AM
Thanks very much for your comments, Brett. You are raising some important questions.
Audience of the blog: Yes, this is aimed at a rather technical audience. It is formulated for those who have an interest and some knowledge about the congregational development field. It may still be too technical...
Orientation towards Structure: You are absolutely right. This is what our diagnosis suggests is the fundamental problem with our diocese (and even the Diocese of Ontario, which has made some significant progress in implementing a "disciple-making" strategic plan), and which I suspect is the major problem with most Canadian Anglican dioceses. More on that in a second.
The Real Problem of Attitudes, both spiritual and psychological: I agree entirely that these are problems. They need to be identified, addressed, and overcome. And as you say, congregations must adapt and change their services in response to the changing tastes of their clientele. From our perspective, however, this is an assessment that the clergy and lay leadership of each congregation have to make, (perhaps with some assistance from a competent and interested archdeacon or regional supervisor). Each local context might be different, and they are responsible for knowing their context and making appropriate decisions. So attitudes can only be "managed" locally.
Our question: Who is responsible for making sure that congregations are actually managing their mission appropriately? Typically, the response has been a laisser-faire diocesan management style: "Send us the money from your assessment, don't break any big rules, and if you can grow somehow, well that would probably be nice so long as you aren't too weird."
By contrast, we believe that bishops are responsible, and should be held accountable for congregational vitality. They can only manage this responsibility by delegating responsibility to regional managers (usually archdeacons, who aren't currently given enough time or authority to do their job, and so don't do it), who would be responsible for supervising the mission management of clergy, who share that responsibility with the congregational lay leaders. The power of the diocese (bishop and archdeacons) is limited (certain decisions belong primarily to congregations and to clergy) but is nonetheless real and can't be replaced from anywhere else: they have the power of their leadership, of the shared diocesan vision/mission, of diocesan resources (expertise, grants, allocation of personnel, public praise or rebuke, the telling of "hero stories" about specific clergy and laity, promotions to new parishes, assignment to desirable and undesirable committees, etc, all of which should be aligned to support the diocesan mission. And if the bishop and diocesan structure does not do its job, no-one else can, and the whole system declines.
In former times, we suspect that the diocesan culture and Christendom model were powerful enough and clear enough to guide most clergy and congregations, although in the Anglican tradition of Canada, we seem mostly to have been following "our people" and providing chaplaincies to them once they had populated a region... We have had relatively little of the missionary focus (and organisational capability) to go out and establish new mission posts; the Episcopal Church's 2020 effort in church planting is an interesting shift to this, and the concept is beginning to filter into Canada as a curious new paradigm...
Short on Solutions: You will see a relatively detailed implementation plan in the Laurentian Deanery Revitalisation Plan (available in PDF format) on the right hand side of the blog under Links.There is an Executive Summary on page 2, and then we go through several steps (122 pages, much of which is introducing new concepts), all of which we think are important: Identify the Diocesan Vision, Clarify the Regional Vision, Inventory the Potential (internal and external) of each congregation, Set Priorities based on an Analysis of the Fundamental Problems (we aren't so clear on how we got to this), Provide a Tool to Guide Growth (the Balanced Scorecard with critical measures for healthy functioning and stretch targets), Get the Bishop and Clergy on board, Help the clergy bring their congregations to decisions (Growth or Decline?), Set Stretch Targets in each congregation, Provide Support for Growth and Change, Evaluate, Start Again.
Post a Comment
Audience of the blog: Yes, this is aimed at a rather technical audience. It is formulated for those who have an interest and some knowledge about the congregational development field. It may still be too technical...
Orientation towards Structure: You are absolutely right. This is what our diagnosis suggests is the fundamental problem with our diocese (and even the Diocese of Ontario, which has made some significant progress in implementing a "disciple-making" strategic plan), and which I suspect is the major problem with most Canadian Anglican dioceses. More on that in a second.
The Real Problem of Attitudes, both spiritual and psychological: I agree entirely that these are problems. They need to be identified, addressed, and overcome. And as you say, congregations must adapt and change their services in response to the changing tastes of their clientele. From our perspective, however, this is an assessment that the clergy and lay leadership of each congregation have to make, (perhaps with some assistance from a competent and interested archdeacon or regional supervisor). Each local context might be different, and they are responsible for knowing their context and making appropriate decisions. So attitudes can only be "managed" locally.
Our question: Who is responsible for making sure that congregations are actually managing their mission appropriately? Typically, the response has been a laisser-faire diocesan management style: "Send us the money from your assessment, don't break any big rules, and if you can grow somehow, well that would probably be nice so long as you aren't too weird."
By contrast, we believe that bishops are responsible, and should be held accountable for congregational vitality. They can only manage this responsibility by delegating responsibility to regional managers (usually archdeacons, who aren't currently given enough time or authority to do their job, and so don't do it), who would be responsible for supervising the mission management of clergy, who share that responsibility with the congregational lay leaders. The power of the diocese (bishop and archdeacons) is limited (certain decisions belong primarily to congregations and to clergy) but is nonetheless real and can't be replaced from anywhere else: they have the power of their leadership, of the shared diocesan vision/mission, of diocesan resources (expertise, grants, allocation of personnel, public praise or rebuke, the telling of "hero stories" about specific clergy and laity, promotions to new parishes, assignment to desirable and undesirable committees, etc, all of which should be aligned to support the diocesan mission. And if the bishop and diocesan structure does not do its job, no-one else can, and the whole system declines.
In former times, we suspect that the diocesan culture and Christendom model were powerful enough and clear enough to guide most clergy and congregations, although in the Anglican tradition of Canada, we seem mostly to have been following "our people" and providing chaplaincies to them once they had populated a region... We have had relatively little of the missionary focus (and organisational capability) to go out and establish new mission posts; the Episcopal Church's 2020 effort in church planting is an interesting shift to this, and the concept is beginning to filter into Canada as a curious new paradigm...
Short on Solutions: You will see a relatively detailed implementation plan in the Laurentian Deanery Revitalisation Plan (available in PDF format) on the right hand side of the blog under Links.There is an Executive Summary on page 2, and then we go through several steps (122 pages, much of which is introducing new concepts), all of which we think are important: Identify the Diocesan Vision, Clarify the Regional Vision, Inventory the Potential (internal and external) of each congregation, Set Priorities based on an Analysis of the Fundamental Problems (we aren't so clear on how we got to this), Provide a Tool to Guide Growth (the Balanced Scorecard with critical measures for healthy functioning and stretch targets), Get the Bishop and Clergy on board, Help the clergy bring their congregations to decisions (Growth or Decline?), Set Stretch Targets in each congregation, Provide Support for Growth and Change, Evaluate, Start Again.
<< Home
|
Copyright 2005, Mark Gibson (email at markagibsoncan@gmail.com) |