Right Size

braedennip10.wikispaces.com

imur.com

What is the right size for a congregation? Some would say it is one which can support a building, have a full-time minister, and which can offer programs that meet the needs of the members. Others might say it is one in which I can know everybody by face and first name. Still others might say one which is big and powerful enough to address issues in the community and world with measurable outcomes. There are many definitions of what is the right size for a congregation. When it comes to making a judgement about that, we are all like Goldilocks. Some might be too small, some too big, and some “just right.” When I was a general presbyter (one with administrative, pastoral and leadership responsibilities for the mission, ministry and maintenance of the presbytery), I could tell you from year to year how many members it would take for a congregation to be “just right” by the first definition. I do know that there is no “one size” which fits all.

According to Facebook, I have 267 friends. In reality, I have a few friends, some acquaintances, some people who interest me, and some who happen to be friends of friends. When I look at the vast numbers of "friends" some of my friends have it makes me feel unfriendly. As I reflect on my social connections, over the years, they have always been rather small circles. My nuclear family was just four of us. My extended family, particularly on my father’s side included several aunts, uncles and cousins. Among the cousins, there was a relatively small group of us who were close, and a larger group I barely knew because they were significantly older or lived further away. The neighborhood in which we lived was relatively small and there were few people my age. The elementary school I attended was small, and I can only recall about ten people I would have called friends. High school was much the same. There were eighty-two people in my graduating class. I knew a lot of people, but I would have called about twenty people as my friends. When I went to college, beginning at The Ohio State University, my freshmen class had fifteen thousand students. That was a quantum jump from my high school graduation class. OSU was too large and offered too many distractions for me. I didn’t make it to my sophomore year. I flourished in a college of about two thousand students.

A dear friend of mine grew up in a smaller to small mid-sized congregation in a relatively small town. She and her family were totally involved in the life of the congregation. After she was married and moved to a big city, she said she wanted a big church where she could become lost in the crowd. After a while, the bigness did not fit. So she and her family moved to a congregation of around two hundred fifty members where they could be more involved in the life of the congregation. It fit “just right.”

In large congregations, more than five hundred members, they usually become a conglomeration of smaller groups. Sunday school classes, the choir, fellowship groups, Stephen ministers, and a host of other smaller groups become the focal point for relational exchanges. I have known pastors of larger and huge congregations who have admitted there was no way they could know the names and faces of all of the members. Specialized staff tended to the smaller relational grouping.

In an excellent NPR article titled “Don't Believe Facebook; You Only Have 150 Friends,” we are pointed toward some serious considerations about what is a right sized congregation. The NPR staff writers drew upon the research of Robin Dunbar in writing the article/program script. Dunbar proposes that the number of people we can really “know” ripples out from five to the one hundred fifty ripple. Much beyond that we may know of somebody, but we probably do not really know them.

This might suggest that the ideal sized church, or subsection of a large church, might be in the neighborhood of one hundred fifty people. While it is true that we can gather for concerts or worship with thousands, we cannot build or maintain meaningful relationships with that many people. We have heard it jokingly said, “Last night, I was with two-thousand of my closest friends at an Adele concert.” We know that is a hyperbolic statement of the relationship of the speaker to the others at the concert.

If a congregation is to be a community, not only for corporate worship, but for mutual development as disciples of Christ Jesus, then the “right sized” congregation might be one hundred fifty people (give or take a few people). If we are to be of mutual encouragement and discipline, we need to be in a significant relationship with one another. To use a colloquial phrase, “If I do not know you from Adam” will I value your encouragement or discipline? In a congregation of one hundred fifty people we can know and be known; we can care for and be cared for; we can trust and be trusted. Maybe we are spending too much time, effort and resources trying to grow congregations beyond the 200 plateau. Maybe we need to look to stable, meaningful relationships which are more possible, according to Dunbar, in those congregations of around one hundred fifty souls.

https://www.wayostccs.com

Leadership Development

In my early years of doing Committee on Ministry work in John Calvin Presbytery, I often accompanied Jim Marlette, Associate Executive. Jim was usually in lead as we met with sessions concerning issues, conflicts and opportunities they were facing. My role, in the meeting, was to observe Jim and those with whom we were meeting. After the meeting, on our way home, we frequently stopped some place for coffee to “debrief” our meeting. Jim would usually ask, “What did you see happening during the meeting?” I would share my observations and Jim would ask, “What could have improved the outcome?” He really was not asking me to critique his participation. He was asking me to take in my total observation and to draw lessons for my own development. I give thanks for Jim’s being a significant influence in my OJT (on the job training.)

This afternoon I was reading an article on LinkedIn. The article was titled “Why Leadership-Development Programs Fail.” (McKinsey Quarterly, January, 2014, Pierre Gurdjian, Thomas Halbeisen, and Kevin Lane) In the church, as in business, we have often used off-site academic style educational opportunities for leadership development. We have sent gifted people off someplace to acquire knowledge on various topics such as conflict management, administration, preaching, pastoral care, and a plethora of functional tasks. When they return to their context, we wonder why performance is not improved all that much. Gurdjian, et al, state,

When it comes to planning the program’s curriculum, companies face a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, there is value in off-site programs (many in university-like settings) that offer participants time to step back and escape the pressing demands of a day job. On the other hand, even after very basic training sessions, adults typically retain just 10 percent of what they hear in classroom lectures, versus nearly two-thirds when they learn by doing. Furthermore, burgeoning leaders, no matter how talented, often struggle to transfer even their most powerful off-site experiences into changed behavior on the front line.

The answer sounds straightforward: tie leadership development to real on-the-job projects that have a business impact and improve learning. But it’s not easy to create opportunities that simultaneously address high-priority needs—say, accelerating a new-product launch, turning around a sales region, negotiating an external partnership, or developing a new digital-marketing strategy—and provide personal-development opportunities for the participants.

Yes, during the whole course of my ministry, I went off to take various specialized courses for my study leave, often underwritten by the congregation, presbytery, and synod. I have to acknowledge the truth of the assertion, in the article, I learned a lot more by doing and the reflective practice Jim led me through in real life situations.

I have discovered that Jim was functioning as a coach. He was asking me to employ my knowledge, my gut intuition, and observations to mold my theology, philosophy and practice in a contextual situation. Long before I knew it Jim was schooling me to be a coach. Since then, I have supplemented what Jim taught me by studying the theory and practice of coaching through the Auburn Coaching Institute, actively practicing coaching, continued study, and participating in reflective practice with other coaches.

I am convinced, dollar for dollar, the best “leadership development” for pastors, other leaders in congregations, and in more inclusive councils (governing bodies/judicatories) of the church is OJT with a coach. Where the coach and leader are in a co-creative process dealing with real time situations in the specific context in which the leader finds her/his self. The role of the coach is not to give direction, but to help the leader draw upon their own resources, reflectively, to discover a way forward. 

https://www.wayostccs.com

Good Question

One of the questions I constantly struggled with as a young pastor was “Why can’t I be content to be a small church pastor?” Except for the year and one half I spent as an assistant pastor in a five hundred member congregation in Lexington, Kentucky I never served a congregation of more than a couple hundred souls. As a General Presbyter, most of the congregations in the presbytery I served had fewr than one hundred and fifty members. Now serving as a synod stated clerk and as a presbytery transitional stated clerk the predominant size congregation in both places is only slightly larger than one hundred members.

I just read an interesting article on LinkedIn, Reality Check: We're All Going to Pastor a Small Church, by Karl Vaters. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/karl-vaters/2016/february/reality-check-were-all-going-to-pastor-small-church.html?paging=off&utm_content=buffer2cfe3&utm medium=social&utm_source =linkedin.com&utm_campaign=buffer) When I graduated from seminary most of us expected to either begin as a “junior” member of a pastoral staff, or to begin in a congregation of two hundred members and move to a larger congregation in a few years. Little did any of us know the nature of the church in the United States had already begun to turn in a new direction.

Very few classes were offered on serving a smaller membership congregation. One of the few exceptions of faculty members even talking or writing about the small church was Carl Dudley at McCormick Seminary. (http://www.amazon.com/Making-Small-Church-Effective-Dudley/dp/0687230446)

Not much has changed. Vaters states, Seriously, take a look at the class schedules for any ministry training school or seminary. How many of them are telling their ministerial students any of these realities, let alone teaching them the skills needed to pastor a small church? My observation is most of those teaching church administration courses in seminaries are still doing so from the perspective of larger sized congregations. Believe me there is a significant difference in how one deals with administration in a one fifty member congregation and one with five hundred members.

 

There is also a big difference in the kind of ministry and mission opportunities which are expected or which can be offered. It is not that ministry and mission activities cannot be offered with a small number of folks. One has to realize there is a limited number of people to participate. Therefore, a limited number of activities can reasonably be offered. The idea of a 24/7 programming, and multiple paid and volunteer staff is not a small church reality.

Smaller membership congregations tend to prefer pastors who will love and care for them, rather than program them into exhaustion. Smaller membership congrega-tions respond more to the shepherd than a blazing social prophet. In smaller congregations there is more opportunity to directly be involved with members in individual spiritual development. As Vaters asks about seminaries, How many of them are telling their ministerial students any of these realities, let alone teaching them the skills needed to pastor a small church?

Where do we prepare pastors to enter the tightly knit community of the smaller congregation? Where do we help those preparing to serve a smaller congregation accept that the relationships among the members are far more important than the finer points of theology or polity? What are presbyteries doing to help pastors, especially first call pastors, to deal with the disappointments and frustrations experienced when serving smaller membership congregations due to the pastors’ unrealistic expectations?  What is being done to help pastors develop the skills to serve multiple congregations without neglecting their own family, their own spiritual, emotional and physical well being? Where are those considering entering the pastorate told they will probably need to have gainful employment in addition to serving a congregation or congregations?

A reality check is not only necessary for pastors. A reality check is necessary for those overseeing the preparation, education, and supervision of pastors. We no longer are called to serve the congregations we fantasized about in the 1960s, 1970s, or early 1980s. Smaller congregations are the norm, not the exception.

Dilemma

I have a dilemma. I have encountered a situation where what I have said and what I do are not in sync. Let me illustrate.

I have said for years, “Sometimes you have to help the greedy to help the needy.” This has particularly been true when it comes to helping people who stop by the church or happen upon you on the street and ask for assistance. I realize some are just con artists. Yes, some will only use a financial gift for drugs or alcohol. Yes, there are stories of people who make more in one day in their begging cup than some do working an eight to ten hour shift. Still, I feel, in the spirit of giving alms to the poor, that I should still drop a few shekels in their cup, hat or hand.

Here is where my dilemma come in. I hang two bird feeders out during the months when it is cold, the ground is snow covered, and natural seeds are sparse. The feeders attract all manner of birds common to this area in the winter. There are cardinals, chickadees, sparrows, blue jays, finches, doves and some others I cannot identify. The doves are in the third or fourth generation which live in our neighborhood year round. They are too large to hang onto the wire cage feeders, so must rely on the seeds which drop to the ground while others are feeding.

We also have an abundance of squirrels. In the Fall, our hickory tree produces an abundance of nuts. The squirrels busy themselves eating and gathering the hickory nuts. Some they bury in the yard, others they carry off to store elsewhere. The squirrels also like to climb on and feed their gluttonous selves on the feeds I have put out for the birds. Don’t call PETA or ASPCA, but I do use many means of shooing them away from the feeders. One of the means is my bb/pellet gun. I do not shot them to kill them, using just enough power to “sting” them, and make them scurry away. Last year, it got to the place where all I had to do was open the sliding patio door and they would hightail it. Dang it, I put that feed out for the birds, not the squirrels!

Can you see my dilemma? When it comes to humans, if I am willing to risk feeding the greedy to feed the needy, why do I resent and chase away the squirrels from the bird feeders? St. Francis I am not when it comes to the squirrels.

I guess I am like many others who have a double standard in determining who or what to help. I guess I have a double standard and a limit to my generosity. I don’t mind frequently filling the feeders for the birds, and resent the squirrels sucking out the seeds like there is no tomorrow.

It makes me wonder where else in life do I have this dilemma. If I have it with the bird feeder, where else does it manifest itself in my life? What if it were me instead of the squirrels who was hungry in the winter? It makes me wonder about how we, collectively as a society, have the same dilemma, the same double standard?