Is There a Future for Diocesan Structures?

            In 1990 I attended a conference put on by Leadership Network.  There I heard one of my mentors, Lyle Schaller, say something very evocative about denominations and judicatories (dioceses for us Episcopalians.)  What he said that day was that everyone understands the importance of the local congregation for Christians.  Then he added that no one can explain a rationale for the existence of a national organization.  Finally, he went on to say that there is a role for the local diocese, but it must be transformed.  The problem he went on to explain is that most everything done by a judicatory on the national or local level can be done better and more effectively by some other organization. 

Take for example Christian Education.  In the 1950s and 1960s almost every denomination produced Christian Educational materials for local churches – think Seabury Curriculum.  By the 1970s, local congregations could choose among dozens of alternative materials that were better, less expensive and more relevant than that produced by a denomination.  Or think about capital fund-raising, time was each denomination had an agency to help congregations when they needed to raise funds for buildings.  Again, by the 1970s, we had numerous organizations that would customize a program for each congregation.  I could give many such examples. 

Some of us do think we would be a bit better off if our national organization would cease to be so costly given its questionable role, but in this blog I want to focus on what Schaller had to say about a diocese.  He thought that there is a vital role for the diocese to perform, but it needed to re-invent itself to carry out this role.  He described this as moving away from many traditional things and toward new ones.  Over the years, I have become absolutely convinced at his insight.  Let me describe what I see as the primary functions of a Diocese in the old paradigm and the ones needed today.

Primary Functions of a Diocese in the Old Paradigm

1.       A Mission Funding Forwarding Agency.  In the old days, we on the local level would take up offerings to fund mission work somewhere else, usually the so-called third world; remember the “mite boxes”?  Today, local congregations can form companion relationships across wide geographic boundaries because of the internet and better communications.  We can even form relationships with non-governmental agencies in providing clean water or mosquitoes netting for local villages.  The point here is that we do not need our denomination to make these happen.

2.      A Resource Redistribution Center.  This simply means taking money from larger congregations in a diocese and giving it to smaller ones.  Today our largest congregations have plenty of needs on the local level and in their communities.  They do not worry about sustaining small mission churches in small rural communities.

3.      A Congregational Accrediting Agency.  This was the role the diocese had in planting and recognizing new congregations and closing dead ones.  Today we know that dioceses are one of the least effective agencies in forming new congregations.  If you do not think so, look at the abysmal track record within TEC in new church planting.

4.      A Clergy Accrediting Agency.  This continues in the work of Commissions on Ministries and Standing Committees. The problem is not with accrediting but rather with educating such persons for effective ministry leadership in today’s world.

5.      A Regional Program Entity.  Do Dioceses really need youth, adult education, stewardship and other such ministries done on a regional level?  Dioceses think so, but the participation by local congregations says “not really.”

6.      A Denominational Link to Ecumenical Activities, Agencies and other Denominational Bodies.  In the 1950s and 1960s, ecumenical work was negotiated on a judicatory level.  Today, ecumenical work is done cooperatively on the local level with judicatories holding symbolic meetings. 

Primary Functions of a Diocese in the New Paradigm

1.       Resourcing and Networking Congregations.  The Diocese that can serve as a resource to the local church has a place in the future.

2.      Strategic Planning.  Often a diocese can best frame strategic planning on the local level and can contribute significantly on a regional level.

3.      An Inspirational Challenge Agency.  A diocese can provide vision, funding and training to help local leaders carry out their work. 

4.      A Congregational Intervention Agency. A diocese can intervene to help declining, stagnant and conflicted congregations.  Let’s face it; this is more and more of a need of TEC given our recent high level of conflict and the 60% of our congregations in serious decline. 

I am not saying that a diocese can move totally from the old paradigm to the new one a short period of time.  Like Schaller, however, I believe those that start a steady movement from the old to the new assure a healthy future for themselves and their congregations into the 21^st Century; those, that do not, make themselves more and more irrelevant to their congregations.  Where is your diocese in the movement from the old way of being the church to the need new way of being the church? 

The Preaching Scale

In this blog I want to point to one thing the clergy could do to make our congregations more attractive and magnetic to non-Christians and Christians alike.  Why not improve our preaching?

Let me be clear, I am not saying that preaching in the Episcopal Church is bad.  I think it is generally thoughtful, contextually related to the Sunday lectionary, and generally informative.  It is, in other words, good.  And that is the problem.  It is not great, and I think I know the reasons why.

When I do workshops on preaching or have taught preaching at our Stanton Center, I usually start off by asking about good preachers the students have known.  We make a list on a whiteboard.  The list usually includes some former rector, a current rector, an occasional bishop, and a few students point to some well-known clergy within our denomination such as our Presiding Bishop.  What I then point out to the participants is that none of them is known beyond the Episcopal Church especially when it has to do with preaching.  What this exercise shows is what is generally known outside the Episcopal Church, namely, our clergy are not known as outstanding preachers. 

Herbert O’Driscoll, John Stott, and Barbara Brown Taylor are three Anglicans known as great preachers by non-Episcopalians.  All are recognized by Christians outside our community as outstanding.  Now I ask, what do they all have in common?  Yes, it is true that they are all good story tellers.  All three use illustrations creatively.  True, they are full of biblical insights.  However, there is something else that is often overlooked and gives us great insight into our current situation.  The three were or are students and teachers of preaching.

For 15 years, I worked in positions that put me directly in clergy placement and recruiting which means that I read lots of resumes and Clergy Deployment Office Profiles.  I found that 90% of Episcopal Clergy list preaching as their first or second primary pastoral skill.  In other words, we think we are good preachers. So, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being outstanding, we rank ourselves in the 7, 8 or 9 category.  Why do we think this?  We judge ourselves this way because our scale is based on Episcopal clergy, those who teach preaching in our seminaries, and hearing ourselves preach.

Some folks think I am a good preacher, even some of my students.  They are surprised to learn that I rate myself as a “5” generally who can occasionally preach a “7” on what I call “The Preaching Scale.”  Then I point out the counter-cultural truth.  If I am a good preacher, it is because I think I need to work at it.  You see, if we rate ourselves as already good, we do not dedicate ourselves to becoming great.  I consider myself both a preacher and a student of preaching.  I attend workshops on preaching.  I constantly read books on preaching. I also study communications and read books on writing well.   I analyze the preaching of others, and I listen to outstanding preachers from other traditions. 

In listening to outstanding preachers, I mark how she or he uses language; words, phrases, and imagery to communicate effectively.  I listen to how they make their case, appeal to their listener, and motivate others to action. 

The good news is that preaching involves multiple skills, and because of this, any preacher can improve.  We can improve the content of our sermons.  We can improve the delivery of our sermons.  When we do, we almost always get positive feedback from our congregation.  When a preacher has something worthwhile to say, and says it effectively, it draws people in.

All our congregations are faced with challenges, and many are in decline.  There are many reasons for this, and the truth is that many of these are beyond the power of the clergy person to fix.  However, we can begin today to become a better and more effective communicator of the Gospel.  If you want to become a more effective clergy person who is a blessing to your congregation, give yourself over to becoming a student of preaching. Desire to become better at the task than you are now, and you will do yourself, your church and your community a favor. 

Fast, Good, Cheap – Choose

Several years ago a management professional shared with me this principle, “You can’t get all three values:  fast, good, cheap.” I have found it true. 

Imagine you want to produce a newcomer’s brochure for your congregation.  You want it fast, good, and cheap.  It will not happen.  Here is what will happen:

You can get it fast and good, but it will not be cheap.

You can get it fast and cheap, but it will not be good.

You can get it good and cheap, but it will not come fast.

So, when you plan events, activities or need items, you will want to keep this rule in mind.  You will want to take the time to decide your priorities. 

For example, last year we decided we needed to improve the ramp for handicap access into the Cathedral.  We even received a generous grant from The Episcopal Foundation to help with this project.  Our primary goal was an ADA compliant ramp that enhanced the entrance to the Cathedral.  It has now been a full year since we started, and we have yet to begin any construction.  Our essential mistake was that, typical of churches, we wanted it fast and cheap.  I imagined it would take about a month, two at most, to execute.  Our problem was that we forgot to ask the priority question.  What will be our primary value in taking on this project?  I do not mean the obvious “providing access.”  I mean what value would our leaders and members use in evaluating this project.  I should have anticipated the answer.

I have learned that the primary value we use when related to the Cathedral Church is “good.”  We consider the architecture and aesthetics of the Cathedral building a heritage.  We are stewards of this inheritance.  On the other hand, our other facilities are often valued by “cheap.”  For example, “What is the cheapest price we can get for fixing our 70 year old air conditioning system?” As soon as we had our first architectural rendering, I knew the ramp was in trouble.  It fit the budget (cheap) but no one liked the way it looked (good).  After lengthy discussions, we came up with an alternative.  This looked great, but our first estimate was way over our budget.  We could now get good and fast, but it would not be cheap.  This led us back to the drawing board one more time.

My point is that much of this could have been anticipated if I could have remembered the critical formula: you can’t get fast, good, and cheap at the same time.  You can only get two. 

You will want to consider this critical formula when you consider a new website, an addition to present buildings, the remodeling of any present areas, any printed materials, what color to paint the rectory, and any other myriad of decisions.  Remember fast, good and cheap; you probably will not get all three.  Knowing which of these is the most important will save time and confusion.  Oh, and if anyone tells you they can get something for you fast, good, and cheap, the person is probably in sales! 

Hints for Welcoming and Incorporating New Vestry Members

            One of the biggest issues facing Episcopal Vestries at the beginning of a new year is how to best welcome and incorporate the newly elected vestry members. 

Most Vestries operate by electing 1/3 of their members each year at the Annual Meeting.  My experience is that these Vestries do not pay close enough attention to the inclusion of the new members.  Simple steps can help new members more quickly become fully participating leaders.  Over the years, Vestry members have told me that usually it takes about a year for them to feel free to speak up and understand all that they are called to do.  Here are a few suggestions that I have for making this transition go faster and better.

1.       Tell nominees up front what you expect of them.  This year at the Cathedral we created a nominating form that states clearly the expectations and requirements of vestry members.  We asked both the nominator and the nominee to sign the statement, which includes the nominee’s agreement to support the mission of the Cathedral as stated in our mission statement.

2.      Bring the new members on board right at the first meeting.  Here is my favorite question to ask new vestry members:  “Could you share with us why you were willing to allow your name to go forward for election to the Vestry at this time?  Or, “What concerns do you bring to the Vestry as a new member?”

3.      Orient them to unfinished business.  Take time to have a warden or longer-term member share what the on-going matters are before the Vestry.  For example, we do our Stewardship in January at the Cathedral, so we spent time at our first meeting with the new members explaining both the rationale and the assumptions we made in our budget and the on-going challenges we faced.  In addition, three major facilities renovations are in process.  We explained these and allowed for questions. 

4.      Debrief previous challenges.  When appropriate, I ask the current Vestry members to share what they see as the greatest challenges the parish has faced during their tenure.  It is also stimulating to ask them to share what has been their greatest sense of accomplishment during their time on the vestry.  Even when there has been substantial conflict in the past, these questions allow all the members to gain some perspective on the issues.

5.      Have the Rector share her or his experience with Vestries.  Most clergy have had considerable experience with Vestries.  Take advantage of this early on.  I always like to share what I perceive to be the greatest problem a Vestry faces; namely, a Vestry member with a sole agenda who is unwilling to sacrifice this agenda in the best interest of the entire congregation.  I have lots of examples after 40 years!

6.      Share on how to bring feedback from congregational members to the Vestry and Church leaders.  Explain “triangulating” and how to avoid this.  It is always best to do this before issues arise.

7.      Talk about how decisions are made.  Most vestries work by consensus until “something really important or legal” comes along.  Discuss what decisions with take a simple consensus, which ones require a vote, and which ones would require a ¾ majority.  (Yes, there are some really important ones that do!)

8.      If you have Vestry committees, describe these and give the new members an opportunity to participate on the committee of their choice.  We have four at the Cathedral, and we give new members a description and ask them to indicate their first two choices.  The Senior Warden and I then assign them to a committee based on these two preferences.  (We do not worry if the committees are equal in number.) 

It was the lack of good orientation for Vestries that led my last Diocese (Texas) and my current one (Dallas) to provide a Vestry Leadership Day.  Our newly elected Vestry members find these very helpful.  Take the time to bring new members on board and you will reap plenty of rewards in your life together. 

           

What Church Leaders Can Learn from Lou Holtz

            Recently, I heard an interview with Lou Holtz legendary football coach. He told the following about his development as a leader.  When he left as assistant coach of a nationally ranked program to become head coach for the first time at William and Mary University, he was full of certainty that the success his previous school had achieved would guarantee success in his new position.  “Unfortunately, I failed to realize that William and Mary had more Marys than Williams,” he said laughingly.  The team was a complete failure his first year.

            He went on to say that in the off season he sat down and took stock about what had happened and what he had learned.  From this he drew what he called “The Three Principles that have guided me all my life as a coach and leader of others.”  What were these?

1.       Always do the right thing.  He shared that a leader can never compromise his or her integrity in either the pressures of success or failure.

2.      Give the best you can of your gifts and abilities.  At William and Mary he simply didn’t have the talent that his previous program had.  He could not ask his players to be other people.  He could ask them to give the best of what they had.  He learned to know this about himself and his players.

3.      Always show others that you genuinely care for them.  He not only applied this to himself but to all the young people under his charge.  He taught them to always show others respect and that they truly cared.   

          I could not help but apply these insights from Coach Holtz to our context as leaders of Christian communities.   First, I thought about the number of situations where I had seen clergy fail because for some reason (or rationalization) they had lost their essential moral compass.  “Act with integrity in the moment” is something we must always live by.  Is there any better description of Jesus or the Saints than that they acted with integrity in the moment; they did the right thing.  I would content that at no point in American history has our community more needed its religious leaders to model this truth.

            Second, I have to admit that here have been many times in ministry that I have felt that I could be the right priest and leader if only I had the right congregation.  I have had to learn, like Coach Holtz, that we only get the people God gives us.  I believe that the shortening length of tenures of clergy in the past 30 years reflects this quest of many of us to find a geographical cure from our present lack luster people.  We only need to look at the Twelve Apostles to be reminded that Jesus built his Church on fairly ordinary people.  A friend of mine used to joke that “it is hard to fly with eagles when you work with turkeys!”  Yet the truth is that we are given who we are given.  In our theology, we believe that God has given to the local community the spiritual gifts and fruit to carry out what God wants in that place. 

            Third, as I often say to clergy at conferences and other occasions, “The ministry is about people, and people need to know that you, as a leader, genuinely care for them.”  Today, I find many clergy who think ministry is about ideas, theology, or some cause.  Some think it is about emails and blogs.  Some apparently even think it is about our success and careers.  Think about this for ourselves.  We have all known people, maybe even leaders, who initially fool us into believing that they really care about us.  However, we learn quickly and sometimes painfully the truth that they did not.  Genuine care is long-lasting.  This is why I think that the long-term pastor is often so effective at influencing a Church.  John Maxwell is famous for saying, “They don’t care what you know until they know that you care.”  Amen to that!

            Let me close by pointing out that Coach Holtz never described his success as vested in a system, a strategy, or a way of organizing his teams.  He described it in being a model and in relationship to others. 

What Kind of Staff Person Should You Hire?

Skills and competency are essential, but before you hire someone there may be a more important question to ask yourself

If you are the Rector of a program size church, one critical issue you face is the hiring of new staff members.  Of course, smaller churches have staff too, but these are different from the staff of larger churches.  Large churches often have staff members that have responsibility for significant areas of congregational program and ministry. 

Over the years, I have hired staff and assisted other clergy in this task.  Of course, there are critical issues such as position description, compensation, expectations and the like that are important, however I think there is a much more fundamental question that the Rector should has herself before starting the search process.  “Do I want to hire the best and brightest person for this work, or would I rather have a competent person who can carry out responsibilities, but who will remember that I am the best and brightest person in this organization?”  Let me explain.

I have noticed that there is a fundamental attitude in leaders about how they see themselves in relationship to the people they hire.  For people like Bishop Claude Payne, my boss for over nine years, the critical issue was hiring people who shine out in their work. (Let us call this kind of person, the A Type Leader.)  People like Bishop Payne operate with a broad sense of delegation, delegating authority as well as responsibility.  They expect staff to perform to high standards and to take the initiative when needed.  They believe that compliments and achievements of their staff reflect positively on them.

For other leaders, the attitude is quite different.  They are very concerned that they are seen as the center or primary person of their organization.  (I will call this person, the B Type Leader.) They also delegate, but mainly responsibility, not much authority.  Personally and emotionally, they are uncomfortable when members of their staff act independently or take the initiative.  They can be uncomfortable when staff members are complimented or shine forth. 

Now, I want to be clear.  I have known very effective leaders of both kinds, but what I am suggesting here is that it is best to know which kind of leader you are.  Otherwise, hiring becomes more difficult, and expectations are often unclear or miss-communicated.  When such things happen conflict results.  Conflict with staff is often the most difficult and costly things that can happen in a larger congregation. 

Further, not all potential staff members are comfortable with both these kinds of leaders.  Some, like me, function best with high autonomy.  I work best with an A Leader.  Others like a greater sense of security and direction.  These people prefer a B Leader.

Unfortunately, both A and B Leaders tend to think that they want the best and brightest staff and want them to shine forth.  On three occasions, a B Leader asked me to help prepare a short list of candidates for a parish position.  He told me that he wanted the “best possible” person and I assumed this meant an outstanding person in the area of ministry.  I was confused when the leader chose the person that I felt was least able on the list.  On the other occasion, the leader passed over my recommendations and chose a person that he felt was just better suited for that congregation.  It took me a while to figure out that I had a B leader. 

I can take this further to say that this B Leader had and continues to have conflict with staff members.  He tends to hire people perceived as the best in their field and then becomes unhappy when they are perceived by the B leader to be either insubordinate or disloyal. 

However, I have also known A Leaders that got into conflict with staff members, particularly staff members who were correctly perceived as highly competent, but who wanted clearer direction or were low risk takers. 

I may have said enough in this blog to help you understand which type leader best describes you and how you prefer to operate.  Unfortunately, experience has shown me that some leaders, even quite successful ones, do not necessarily have insight about their own behavior or expectations.  If you are a leader who is unsure about which of these two descriptions best suit you, there are at least three ways to get meaningful feedback on this.

First, give a copy of this blog to your spouse and ask them which type best describes how you operate.

Second, give a copy of this blog to a trusted and competent lay leader, and then ask her which best describes you.

Third, and perhaps the most insightful, give a copy of this blog to a former staff person and ask him which best describes you. 

Did I mention that feedback can sometimes be difficult?  Unfortunately, it is often the best road to insight.   

Advice Two

What is the best advice you have received as a church leader?  I continue with my second piece of advice given to me that I now pass along to you. 

“Give yourself to the dedicated few.”

When I consult with churches on stewardship, I often get a common question from the new stewardship chair, “What can we do to effectively reach all the people in the church who give so little?”  I know exactly why this question is asked.

The chair person has looked at the data and discovered that 70 to 80% of the income of the church comes from 20 to 30% of the members.  Looking at the large percentage of parish givers who give a very small amount, it is natural to start thinking about how well the church would do if all the people giving little stepped up to the challenge of the primary supporters.   My advice?  “Aim your principle efforts are the dedicated few!”

I have heard a number of different leaders give this advice in one way or another from John Maxwell to Bill Bright.  The most direct was told me by John Wimber, the founder of the Vineyard Church Movement.  When I told him that I was having trouble getting everyone in my parish to deepen their commitment, he pointed out to me that in scripture we constantly see God working by calling first the most committed to deeper commitment. 

Of course, we also have the example of our Lord himself.  He had many admirers, but he gave most of his energy and time to “the twelve.”  This inner circle became the first leaders of the Christian Movement after the Resurrection.  It helps to remember that Jesus ministered to “the crowd.”  He also taught his disciples. However, he chose the twelve to lead.  I have often noticed clergy who aim their energy and efforts only at the congregation in general (the crowd?)  Lasting and deep change seem to me to come when a leader gives herself or himself to an inner circle of more dedicated people.

As a student of history, I have also noticed that movements that have had long lasting effect usually have a leader who created and disciple an inner circle of dedicated people.   

Over the years, I have constantly rediscovered this principle.  If I want to get something done, or move the congregation forward, I start with the most committed.  This is also true for me.  When faced with a costly or sacrificial decision in my congregation, I first have to deepen my own commitment.