Resources for “A Place that Offers Life”
While congregational and denominational leaders often believe that it’s the pastor’s job to turn around a declining congregation, Daniel Smith and Mary Sellon hold that ultimately, “congregational health is a function of how people in the congregation relate to one another, to God, and to their community.” Such relationships are sources of hope, belonging, purpose, and appreciation.
The July 13 Alban Weekly (“A Place that Offers Life“), based on Smith and Sellon’s book, Pathway to Renewal: Practical Steps for Congregations, defines congregational “renewal” as “a renewal of the people’s ability to notice and experience God in their midst, a renewal of the congregation’s desire to partner with God in achieving God’s aims.” That renewal can only happen when people truly long for new and transformed life, life grounded in the mission of “helping people experience God and live the gospel message of life and hope.” And it can only happen when people are willing to work for that transformed life, to do what it takes.
If your congregation is ready for renewal, you’ll want to consider the excellent resources listed at the end of the article. In addition, you might consider the “Congregational Renewal” section of the Congregational Resource Guide, particularly the work of Anthony Robinson (Changing the Conversation: A Third Way for Congregations) as well as Howard Friend (Recovering the Sacred Center: Church Renewal from the Inside Out).
Related to congregational renewal is the sometimes more radical process of redevelopment. If this is something you are exploring, check out the resources in the “Congregational Redevelopment ” section of the CRG—especially the online tutorial offered by George Bullard, “Spiritual Strategic Journey.”
What are your thoughts about congregational renewal? And what resources have you found helpful? We look forward to hearing from you!
I commend the authors for the theology of the church which permeates their excellent article. This is the best article I’ve read from Alban. It’s best because it refuses to trade off sound ecclesiology for catch-phrases or cultural accommodation so typical of the drivel coming out today in how to do the church. The focus off the pastor and consumerism and onto a partership between pastor and congregation who together experience God in community is precisely what the Christian church, currently in a massive identity crisis, needs to survive the 21st century as a healthy/missional church.
Rev. Dr. Paul O. Bischoff, Ph.D.
The complexity lies in how to enable the partnership to happen. I’ve read ‘Recovering the Sacred Centre’ and recommend it , though I’m not sure how easy it would be to bring that kind of conversation into a congregation whose culture is not to talk about religion, politics or feelings.
I wonder if it isn’t enough to notice and experience God in their midst, to be missional, the congregation also needs to be able to articulate that both individually and as a group. That doesn’t imply only one kind of ‘language’ of spirituality works, but that without that sense of the flow of God’s movement it’s very hard to see the congregation sustaining its energy and forward movement?
It seems to me that the primary ‘spice’ for this change may need to come from a renewed interest in the reason for our faith…promoting opportunities to discover that which grounds us–as opposed to simply being certain we already know; afterall, we were already baptized and confirmed, right?–but for the older congregation I serve, there is little desire to renew discovery. They have had no Bible study for about 10 years; they have lost all the families with children at home; they have become factions who struggle to make their own desires for the future the focus of the congregation. The language I’ve been using is simply naming the difference between ‘disciple’ and ‘believer’. They do all believe in Jesus Christ, in God’s amazing love and in the power of the Holy Spirit. Trusting God’s action in their own lives is a different matter!
Is this focus on disiciple/believer a direction anyone else has taken?
This article names that which I believe and have discovered to be the focus as this congregation is challenged by circumstances to move beyond a maintenance or survival focus to a mission with a future–sharing God’s amazing love and grace to the local and greater world in which we live.
The essay and blogs above are correct in the abstract; however, churches exist in communities where different congregations offer divers authentic modalities. Therefore, the real question is, for example, “Why should someone go to an (not the) Episcopal Church instead of say, the Methodist Church or the Mormon Church?” RSVP
I agree with Paul, this is one of the very best of many excellent Alban pieces I’ve read. It is CENTRAL to our identity and calling; it names precisely the hope for mainline congregations, the focusing needed — and that it needs to be transformational in the lives of members belonging to each other. Pastor, staff, programming can’t do it.
The pattern we encourage in spiritual formation is to notice and to name and to keep on noticing and naming, seeking patterns that help us discern what God’s doing and calling us to. As Eleanor noted, so many mainline folks need help with the naming, the language. Reclaiming our faith language in new ways seems crucial to me, as well as borrowing more ordinary parlance. Language forms us as we use it, and for too long we’ve abandoned our language because of how others define it. Perhaps liturgy is one place to begin reclaiming and redefining?
I served a congregation similar to what Amy has described, very small, having lost nearly all families through some nasty schisms. However, it had reached the point where those left had been through it all and were committed to each other and to the church. While worshiping perhaps 30 on a Sunday, 25 came to an evangelism workshop! The moderator always remembered the challenge, “If your door closed tomorrow, who would notice?” Their focus began to move from survival and anxiety to enjoying each other, reaching out to the community because they have something worth sharing, valuing faithfulness over success. One key in the renewal of energy was the establishment of a women’s prayer/support group. A short-term group chose to continue indefinitely. Many noted that after years in the church, this was the first time they felt truly known and close with others. They were learning to speak their hearts through faith language. I will never forget how, after one evening when we laid hands on each member one at a time and I offered a blessing, they then had me sit down and laid hands on me and prayed ALOUD for me! They began doing projects in/for the church, and did a dramatic reading for Easter worship. They were transformed! Will the church survive, and grow in numbers? Who knows? But they are being faithful now, and they know it. That’s what matters.
So I guess that’s what comes to mind when I consider Lamont’s question — which church, and why? Each congregation just needs to be itself, to draw upon the gifts of its tradition and the resources available through its denominational structures as they becomes authentic in their setting. Why choose one church over another? Hopefully that will be about matters of individual choice and tastes of the visitor, selecting from among a variety of living, healthy, welcoming churches!
Where is talk of what the members do on their own to make the world more loving and more just at home, at work, in their community, in the wider world and in their leisure from Monday to Friday out from under he church’s “banner?”
That was a fine article; one which cuts to the core of the issue of the church as family and community. Here in the Oxford Hills region, most of the local pastors get together and wrestle with such things together, pray for each other’s needs, and learn from each other’s lives.
After 27 years serving in this community, I find that the very same unhealthy “inward focus” which church congregations often suffer from, also afflicts individuals and households, causing them to be “people blind” and unconcerned about the struggles of others. May the grace of God flow through all of us in Christ. May we be like Him; the one who called a “hated tax collector” to be a disciple; who ministered grace and forgiveness to the “outcast” woman at the well”, and who cared even for the crowds lest they “feint along the way”.
This is a perfectly bad article. What’s it missing? The Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaimed, the forgiveness of sins, the means of Grace. Most specifically, if you examine the sentences: people, pastors, we, us etc. are the subject, and therefore the ‘doers’ of the verb. Jesus is not? There is some mention of relationship with God, and some quotes of Jesus, but all vague and to the end of promoting what “we” can or should or must do.
Where is Christ? Where is Holy Communion? Where are the benefits of baptism, or absolution or the powerful Gospel Word? No where in this article.
It’s anthropocentric. The genuine Christian faith is Christo-centric; grace through faith-centric; sacramentally-focused and all these come to us, not nakedly, but in an historical context known as the Mass or Divine Liturgy. I see nothing of value in this article, except a lot of happy thoughts that put all the burden on “us” to do what we don’t have the ability to do: build Christ’s church.
I apologize for throwing a clinker into this discussion but without a zealous, evangelical, ongoing development/outreach/speaking out by a charismatic leader (or one who’s willing to appear charismatic), no group can flourish. You cannot manage soldiers to their deaths or people to God — you can only lead them.
Too many introverts in leadership positions [See Eric Hanson on "inward focus."] leads to books and discussions like this wherein the introverts throw the responsibility on the congregants — on the sheep they are supposed to lead. That failure doesn’t work, it hasn’t worked and it won’t work to build the church. If you aren’t willing to forcefully, publicly and unequivocally proclaim Jesus as God — by, for example only, cold-calling hostile doors — then the sheep know you’re a manager not a leader. Once they know you want to manage them, they will manage right back: trying to foist responsibility on you. It’s a secular approach with which they are completely familiar.
If, on the other hand, you want examples of leadership that works, spend your Sundays in the non-denominational churches growing in your communities.
Jesus’ gospel — the proclamation of the story of God is alive and growing but not in venues like the Alban Institute (no disrespect intended). It’s out on the street.
I apologize, sincerely and repeatedly, for the sharpness of this post. But I am zealous for the Christ and I wish my church were.
The title says everthing of what our problem is as the Body of Christ, no place can offer life, life is only in HIM, no where else can true life be found and until we start living and breathing that fact, this world, that needs HIM so much, will just keep on dying!