Established: ~1904
Tribe: Protestant Mainline
Worship Style: Rural traditional, family informal
Congregational Demographics:
AWA: 32
Trend: 20 years steep decline; 8 years slow decline; followed by 10 years slight decline
Median Age: 61
Adult Generations: 21 Builders+; 8 Boomers; 2 Gen-X; 1 Millennial
Children/Youth: 2–3
Ethnic Mix: Anglo
SES: Mixed, mostly blue collar; income similar to ministry area
Debt: $0
Available Resources: ~$100,000 in endowments
Ministry Area Demographics:
Population: ~17,000
Trend: Some growth
Median Age: 33.8
Adult Generations: 7.5% Builders+; 8.6% Boomer; 25.1% Gen-X; 32.2% Millennial
Ethnic Mix: 67% Anglo; 20% Black/AA; Others less than 5% each
SES: 64% White collar; 36% blue collar; income slightly higher than state averages
Mosiac Majority Group: O – Singles and Starters (38%)
psychographic description here
Situation:
Half-time pastor for past 30 years retired five years ago. During his tenure, the congregation declined sharply. Largely the decline was due to demographic changes in the community. Fifty years ago, the community was rural and church participation was a part of the fabric of the culture. However, beginning thirty years ago or so, the nearby college town outgrew its boundaries and soon landowners were selling out to developers and subdivisions began popping up. The church quickly moved from being the community hub to just another calendar event that had little to offer suburbanites, other than a quaint, old fashioned rural worship, but with a very warm welcome.
The church depended on four annual community events to make connections with their neighbors. VBS, a two-day garage sale, a summer barbecue, and a turkey dinner in the fall. Although segments of the community did attend, mostly the events attracted former members and associates. VBS was the only non-fundraiser and as the church declined, fewer volunteers were available to help, so ten years ago, it was abandoned. The church made no significant changes to worship or outreach during these years.
When the long-time pastor retired, the church called an interim pastor who led the congregation in DNA development. They agreed on a mission that was about making disciples; values that included hospitality and spiritual development; a vision that looked to reaching the community by gracious hospitality; and included both a membership behavioral covenant and a leadership covenant. In addition, screen technology was installed and used during worship.
Three years ago, the church called a half-time pastor who attempted to lead the congregation into the implementation of the DNA. However, the board waived the leadership covenant to ensure the number of positions dictated by the bylaws were filled. This created conflict within the board and between members of the board and some members of the congregation. In particular, one family (the Smiths … not their names) used their long-time alliances to sideline the leadership and membership covenants in favor of the bylaws (that had been suspended). This created a conflict between the pastor and the leadership and the pastor resigned. Since then, the congregation has continued to decline as conflicts flare up and members or families leave. The church still sees occasional visitors, but few return.
Currently, the church is essentially patriarchal, led by a man who is committed to harmony above all else. The Smiths are well entrenched in the church. The senior Smiths attend regularly, but complain about anything that looks like change. The junior Smiths serve in key leadership roles (but to be fair, because of the bylaws, so does every other active member). Because of the waning numbers, the patriarch does everything in his power to try and “keep the peace,” and therefore tends to capitulate to the Smith family.
Questions – Next Steps
- Start with triage: Is this church salvageable … and at what cost?
- IF it’s salvageable, where would you start?
- What benchmarks would you set for the first year?
Share Your Thoughts In the Comments Section Below
Bill, This is pretty much where I’m at, with 2 churches. A few differences, both between your scenario and my scenario, and between the two churches.
Start with triage: Is this church salvageable … and at what cost?
I’m not sure, but I would like to think they both are salvageable. The cost would be giving up the prevailing attitude in favor of faith in God’s calling and mission for us. It may also take an increase in the population base.
IF it’s salvageable, where would you start?
As I mentioned, I would start, and already have started, redirecting attitude/vision toward faith in God’s calling and mission for us. I would, and have also begun, to guide the redirection to operate from the strength of who we are, rather than trying to be who we aren’t. The redirection would also shift from mainly inward/survival to outward mission.
What benchmarks would you set for the first year?
Realistic benchmarks based on movement, with numerical tie-ins directly corresponding to the movements. For example, set a benchmark of three outward focused events, with an accompanying vague benchmark of increasing participation with each event.
The big hurdle would be moving from seats to action.
I think the cost of trying to resurrect both churches at the same time is going to be the continuing decline of both. There’s only one of you and a church turnaround for one church is a full time job. If you divide your loyalties and energies it’s unlikely either church will find traction.
1. Yes, it is salvageable but not without a lot of research and work.
2. I would start with a retreat among the leaders of the church.at which the church’s mission, vision, and values need to be revisited and possibly amended. A SWOT analysis must also be conducted. The mission, vision and values that come out of the retreat should be followed up with focus groups that mirror the local demographics to test the outcomes from the retreat. The results of the SWOT analysis should be reflected in actions that might also involve identifying and recruiting other volunteers for committees, like marketing/communications.
3. Benchmarks could include something as simple as measuring an increase in the number of congregants and donations to a survey among members to gauge their satisfaction with any programs that may have been rolled out, attitudes, etc.
A church in this situation is going to need a rework of mission, values, and vision … if for no other reason than they haven’t been effective to this date, so they clearly haven’t been motivating any action.
What’s the role of spiritual development?
The Smith family has to be addressed in their power over the church for any real progress to be made. A new turnaround leader must be willing to engage and win over the long standing board members to rewrite the bylaws, too. The last interim Pastor had the right idea for new values and vision, but they were not able to successfully uproot the entrenched culture and church DNA. I would be prepared for the worst: a split could occur if new initiatives are brought in with board approval. Angry members would leave and take others with them.
But wow, look at the local demographics of millenials! What an opportunity. First year benchmarks would be first time guests # and small group participation % and kids ministry #.
Better to not tamper with the bylaws for as long as possible. Get the systems working well before adjusting bylaws in order to write rules that support the new norm, rather than stifling the potential for a new norm.
Yes, a coup and a split is most likely the outcome, but the cost of that split likely means that less than 20 people will remain, leaving few resources to build on or with.
Not an easy scenario …
With God’s intervention anything is salvageable. The determinant here is buy in or buy out from the Smiths. We need a serious conversation with the senior Smith and the patriarch with the death of the church on the line. Either 1) Smith buys into a new future and becomes an advocate for it; 2) Smith walks away to allow a new future to happen or 3) the change agent walks away from an unworkable situation. One possible negotiation play in this setting might be to offer chaplaincy services to the family chapel, maintaining existing worship (with limited time expended by contract) in return for freedom to move forward with a new faith community. (The tough temptation to avoid is letting mission creep allow the existing congregation consume all energy.)
Question 2: If we go forward, we suspend all prior organizational documents for three years with responsibility for leadership vested in a small group (no more than seven) of key leaders including pastor, at least one member of Smith clan, and three to five others weighted 2:1 with “new vision” folks. This group quickly adopts a vision plan of reaching to the new demographic with high energy worship and focused discipleship opportunities.
Question 3: At least three (hopefully five) small group discipleship running within six months. Participation in those greater than the average worship attendance by the end of the year. Growing worship attendance from the prior three year average by the one-year mark, perhaps by moving to alternate time and style.
It’s just a start.
It’s just a start, but if this could be pulled off, it could jumpstart the process.
Rather than small groups, it might be better to enlist four or five in the existing congregation to engage in one-on-one discipling using a deep-discipleship resource that gets daily devotions and spiritual practices quickly engrained … with the understanding that once the “course” is complete, the graduate immediately mentors another one. Thus disciplers are created. We’ve found this process to disciple more people more effectively in less time – a boon when there are limited people resources in a congregation.
I LOVE the multiplying mentorship idea. It could be a winner here. (Some of the elements of both your case and my reply mirror our own experiences here. Thanks for sharing another potential step on the journey.)