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.)

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.