Toolbox For Faith

I received an email last week from a friend about potential factors involved in dealing with reduced giving in a congregation. As I thought about the situation, these five points came to mind.

1. Attendance - if attendance is trending down, that may explain part of the problem. People who don’t attend, typically don’t give - unless you have an automated giving system in place.

2. Increased Giving offset by Missing Families - Individuals may already have increased their giving, but that increase may be offset by families who have left or reduced giving. If you don’t see an increase in giving in response to a direct appeal, it doesn’t mean that people don’t want to respond, it may simply reflect the fact that the people who are present are already giving at their highest level, but it isn’t enough to offset what is lost. A detailed analysis of giving patterns could help bring clarity to this question.

3. The “If you want to see a change in the congregation, feel free to make two changes in yourself first.” Principle - Often people are more willing to make a change if they see change already happening around them. A clear announcement of an increase in giving by leadership combined with a small spending cut or a new source of funding, could encourage other people to act as well. Simply announcing we need to make a change probably won’t be enough.

4. Increased ministry = increased giving. Increased shepherding = increased giving. Often the best way to increase giving is not to send a letter, but to celebrate the ministry being done and to increase the amount of shepherding (caring/visits/conversations) taking place in the congregation. If I found myself in a congregation with a declining giving pattern, I would celebrate a “ministry success” loudly and then start making my way around to visit folks (in person or by phone) and simple ask how they were doing. I wouldn’t ask about money, just life. This is a long-term solution, not a quick fix.

5. How often are you saying “Thank You”? If you aren’t doing so already, I’d start sending (at least) quarterly giving statements with a thank you note in each one. Again, don’t ask for money, simply report what has been given, say “Thank You” and connect that gift to a ministry taking place within the congregation. This too is a long-term solution, not a quick fix.

I had the opportunity last week to hear two lectures focused on Islam and Christianity by Rev. Dr. Mark Swanson, the Harold S. Vogelaar Professor of Christian-Muslim Studies and Interfaith Relations at the Lutheran School of Theology in Chicago, and Associate Director of Center of Christian-Muslim Engagement for Peace and Justice. In the next week or two, Dr. Swanson’s lectures should be posted on the website for the Lutheran Theological Southern Seminary: http://www.ltss.edu/media_center/special_events/, but if you are looking for information or resources on the relationships between Christians and Muslims, check out the website for A Center for Christian-Muslim Engagement: http://centers.lstc.edu/ccme/ .

In a previous time, congregations measured success by the number of people who joined a church. Today, I think a more helpful measure is persons served in mission - the number of people touched by the ministry of a congregation during the course of a year.

Last week, a member shared an excerpt from “WELCOMING NEWCOMERS TO OUR CONGREGATION” by Keith Anderson from Seeds for the Parish.

“‘Not joining does not equal failure. The end result of welcoming is not necessarily membership. If someone only comes for one Sunday, then we have ministered to them in some way. If people are with us for a while and decide not to join, we feel we’ve contributed to their discernment process. If you make welcoming only about membership, it’s a set-up for disappointment. Not everyone will join, and there will never be enough new members. Make it about ministry instead, and decide how you will measure success.’

For me, the term “ministry” puts a different light on welcoming.” (Spring 2011, pg. 5)
http://www.elca.org/Who-We-Are/Our-Three-Expressions/Churchwide-Organization/Communication-Services/Resources/Seeds-for-the-Parish.aspx (accessed May 6, 2011)

I absolutely agree.

When we focus on membership, we are focusing on what people can do for us. When we focus on ministry, we focus on what God can do for the world. As we go about sharing God’s love faithfully, the spill-over effect is that very often people join the congregation - either formally or informally. Since our call is to be God’s heart and hands and voices in the world, not to “make members”, I think it is important that we remember that our success as a congregation is not measured by the number of people who join the church, but by the ways in which we make Christ known to the world.

Almost instinctively, St. Michael tends to make decisions by consensus. The desire for consensus may reflect lessons which were learned by the congregation during a previous time of conflict or it may simply reflect my leadership style, but regardless of why it is happening, consensus is our current form of decision making. The leadership of the congregation has worked to be transparent and has built a strong level of trust. We work hard to share information broadly and to solicit a variety of opinions in order to create a helpful way forward. As Martin B. Copenhaver noted about his congregation an article entitled, “Who Is Robert, Anyway?” in Congregations, Fall 2007, “votes may be a part of the process, but they are not the end toward which the entire process proceeds. Instead, voting is a way of testing consensus, of asking, ‘Do we sense that we discerned the mind of Christ on this matter?”

Given the nature of our culture, congregations often follow a “majority rules” approach to governance. The ones with the most votes win, but as I told a friend of mine recently, just because something is legal, doesn’t mean that it is right or the best way to handle a situation. In my experience, there is nothing to be gained and a great deal to be lost in a congregation by creating win/lose votes on an issue. When we are at our best as a people of God, we, as Copenhaver suggests, “seek together to discern what Christ would have us do.” Trying to discern what Christ would have us do and working to building consensus isn’t always the neatest or most expedient approach to decision making, but I find it to a helpful way to build a healthy leadership team and congregation.

If you are an Alban member, you can read the entire Copenhaver article here: http://www.alban.org/conversation.aspx?id=5026.