Church Union

This is a dialog between Annie Reilly, who is an RCA pastor serving a Presbyterian Church and Bill Levering, who is a Presbyterian pastor service an RCA church in the same town.

B: So Annie, do you think we have any wisdom on the issues of Church Union or congregational cooperation?

A: Well Bill, I think that we do given the relationship between you and I and our cooperating congregations. You have mentored me and continue to offer support in both advisory and idea-generating ways. Our congregations have done some worshiping, education, and mission together. Plus, I'm a Reformed Church (RCA) pastor serving in a Presbyterian (PCUSA) church and you are the opposite, so we've got some ecumenical stuff happening too.

Given that your congregation is the larger (building and congregation), more wealthy, older, with more mission, outreach, staff, and programs, how is it that I don't feel at all threatened or inferior when we work together?

B: My first call was to a church with a senior pastor who was very good at power sharing. He made it seem quite natural and together we got a lot done. Perhaps it's a larger lesson for churches and denominations. But Annie, your attitudes are just as important. You're not looking for trouble or defending any particular turf against the Nephilim.

Union Presbyterian Church joined with First Reformed this last year and they discovered that their programs and values were stronger when we joined. Exhausting 'overhead' battles and efforts were replaced with energy that could be directed at caring, mission, and fellowship. The congregation you shepherd, on the other hand, was not particularly interested in joining in worship and in buildings since they had a different call to mission. Is that how you see it?

A: Absolutely. The State Street Presbyterian congregation is really grounded in their building. It is more than just a house of worship for them, it is their whole mission identity. The building is located in the heart of a low socio-economic neighborhood and few of the church members are also community members. Primarily, this church defines itself as host and is really proud of the agencies and services that they get to house in the building. When we talk about how we feel God's call for the church, the answers are always about the ongoing ministries that the congregants aren't hands on involved in, but know that continue to happen in the building. There may not be the numbers and the energy that there use to be, but the building feels vibrant.

I've been in ordained ministry for a short two and a half years. There is a lot that I don't know. However, it seems to me, that most churches are trying to balance a robust fellowship and worship with a sense of mission and calling in the world. In your experience, does this seem accurate? What happens with that balance is off kilter and how might it be re-established?

B: Balance. Hmm. I'm not sure that balance between mission and fellowship/worship is anyone's goal but you can sure tell when one or the other gets out of wack. There are so many other variables that I wish it was just balancing those, but in practice, there are other things that churches can get worried about including pastors or getting more people in the door or theological 'purity' or social relevance or whatever. As resources for and interest in mainline church wanes, there is a sense of competition and a need to cooperate; a perceived need to stake out a turf while still appealing to everyone. So there are some mutually exclusive agendas in play.

I find that balance is often restored when we get porous. That is, when we join other people at the table, their agendas will challenge and hopefully inform. The church I serve now luckily has a certain engagement built into its ethos and so is eager to connect with differing points of view. For instance, for 50 years we have had an exchange with a local Jewish congregation for worship and study. Some of their fearlessness, however, is because they don't really need to fear for their institutional survival at all.

I know that your folks are looking at a spreadsheet that has some endpoints to it. How does that affect their desire to do mission or cooperate?

A: "A spreadsheet that has some endpoints to it" huh? Is that another way of saying that this congregation is self-aware that they are declining in both membership and financial resources and can project out how many more years they can pay the bills? Because that's exactly the situation we currently find ourselves in. The only way that there is any third act; the only way that there is any sort of resurgence, is for us to do cooperative ministry in very intentional ways. However, what I've seen happen is survival mode. They hired me, a young minister perceived as a magic bullet to attract young families. They are eager to accommodate any organization who would rent space in the building, instead of seeking out those who would match any sort of mission or future vision. They are proud of what happens in the building and spend their resources maintaining it, but few members are involved in any of the ministries they are so proud of hosting. Instead of being proactive and "porous" as you say, they have become entrenched and anxious. They have a genuine desire to do ministry and cooperate, but they are so fixated on surviving and maintaining that they are too frozen to make meaningful connections or dream of a different future.

What this congregation needs is a culture change. They need to be able to move away from the desire to re-create their glory days and into a creative future of God's choosing. That might be for them to close. That might be for them to invite leaders that look and sound more like the neighborhood around them. That might be to sell their building and be free to be worshipers while someone else worries about the bills. Or maybe something else entirely. I don't know how to lead them into this sort of culture change. I see all kinds of potential for cooperation for this congregation- ways to strengthen and formalize our current relationships and ways to tap into other networks in the community that already exist- but it doesn't matter if they aren't able to catch that vision too.

How does meaningful culture change happen? How is consensus built? You recently helped a congregation make a major change and find a new vision for their future. What was their process like and how did you help?

B: I suppose the most helpful thing was that they were interested in dramatic change. They called together representatives from other churches to see who was interested in what and were actively looking for partners. They were open to very different building and personnel solutions. I consider their attitude to be somewhat miraculous.

We helped by very slowly developing the overlapping agendas. We did things together for 2 years. We went to their place, they came to our place. We were able to be flexible across a broad range of issues, including hiring some of their staff and keeping most of their programs and mission priorities. We were not interesting in changing our building or name and that didn't seem to be a deal-breaker.

As a leader, it requires a great deal of patience. I went to many, many meetings before any sort of consensus came about. I just continued to go, continued to say "Here we are. We would love to partner." I would check in on occasion with the consistory of FRC, but frankly, it was the individual efforts of a few leaders from the old church and great encouragement from me that made it happen.

There is a certain entrepreneurial openness that churches need to have to new ventures. We are used to this idea. But there is an equally important openness that needs to develop about partnering. The problem is that partnering means that compromises will be made, some control will be abandoned. It requires much more humility but just as much opportunistic eagerness to partner as it does to start something completely new.

Schenectady still has some 'church shrinking' to do. In the days when the city was at the high water mark, many churches were built to accommodate the population. Many of those churches are just now running out of steam and need to look for new solutions rather than just evaporate. The future of the city is bright for a number of reasons, but we are still overbuilt for the number of Christians we can normally expect to be a part of congregations.

It is possible for any outside agency: another church, a denomination, a council, to effectively help a congregation understand the changing demographics and the reasonable expectations of the future? I'm not sure. The model our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters use is that the hierarchy does the analysis and closes and unites parishes usually with some extensive teeth gnashing. Protestants just aren't going to do it this way willingly. Who would your folks listen to about this Annie?

A: That is a great question that I'm not sure there's an answer to. There is so much anxiety about "church shrinking" and closing. There is deep suspicion of the denominational leadership; that they will deem our church too small and ineffective, (whatever that means) and will form a team to come in a close the doors. That is the understood narrative. That doesn't mean this narrative is actually true. But because of this mistrust with the denominational staff, anything from them, including help toward meaningful change or mirror holding of any kind, is immediately greeted with skepticism. So often, we have been told stories of worshiping groups who sell their building and start this amazing new ministry in joining with someone else, doing mobil worship, meeting in a train station, stepping out on faith unburdened by this physical building. "We were a dying congregation! Now, without our building, we're thriving and doing funky, exciting worship that drives millennials to our metaphorical door! Your building is killing you! Be free and have life!" Okay, not exactly, but this seems to be the implied message that my elders are getting from the denomination by way of what stories are told. So my folks will not likely listen to their own denomination.

Change happens from within. That's community organizing right there. It is the group that needs change that must initially rally the change. Then outside groups are brought on message as allies. The stumbling block of the congregation I serve is not unique from other congregations. They are all talk and no action. I hear a lot about how the future is worrisome, but there is no buy in for any meaningful change. There seems to be a literal freezing in fear. I have spent a couple of years now responding to what I hear from them, asking questions, presenting ideas, trying to implement the programming and leadership that I hear them request. The result has been a lot of push back, passive aggression, and many nights at church alone when no one shows up.

I feel burned out after just a little longer than two years with this congregation. I'm putting energy in, but I'm not getting energy out. Nothing is generated. Being the person that I am, I take responsibility for this. I feel deficient as a leader because surely I'm doing something wrong. I should be able to inspire them out of this freeze. I should be drawing people into the building because my preaching is so good, they can't help but invite their friends and co-workers. I should be able to untangle the systems of grief and apathy in order to light a fire in this congregation to be bold and really want and buy into meaningful change. But change happens from within, and until there are more than three people who want things to change, I don't see it happening; regardless of who their leader is.

Is there a magic bullet to un-freeze the system? I want them to decide on something, anything, even if that's to start thinking about closing. We have about ten more years of being able to pay our bills if our income and spending don't change. Ten years is not a lot of time. How do I hold their feet to the fire? How can I help them move?