Dogs and Cats living together....

This is the week many of my colleagues are off to our General Assembly in Saint Louis, something which in years past I have generally done myself (in fact, I even was married to my former wife at the GA in Atlanta in 1985). But more recently I've gotten out of the habit, and instead tend to spend this week trying to clean up all of the loose paper I accumulate over the course of a church year, so that at least I can begin the summer with a clean desk and uncluttered flat surfaces in my study.

I've also been reading with great interest my seminary-era friend Christine Robinson's Sabbatical Blog, and especially her observations about church growth and church size theory. LINK As the "Bishop of New Mexico," Christine is apparently exploring the issue of how best to extend our faith into the tiny towns and suburbs outside of Albuquerque. Beginning with a discussion of the differences between the "family" sized church and the "pastoral" sized church ("cats" and "collies" in the language of church consultant Lyle Schaller), she ponders the possibility of creating "puppies" -- satellite congregations of a larger "parent" church, which would be nurtured in such a way that they emerge with a different "culture" than your typical 35 member congregation.

Lots of interesting insights here, to which I would love to add some of my own.

1. There is a place for cats in the world, and even in our movement. Recognizing the inherent limitations of metaphor, one problem with breeding puppies is that you may end up raising lap dogs instead of working dogs (think Boston Terriers rather than Golden Retrievers)...which is to say that rather than creating small, independent congregations we end up with a bunch of small DEPENDENT ones. Don't get me wrong; I love Bostons (and even have one myself), and I certainly don't think that this problem is insurmountable. I just think it needs to be recognized.

2. Notwithstanding the observation above, one of the big problems I've noticed with the UUA's previous/current extention efforts is that they were mostly driven by the availability of financial subsidies, which insidiously tended to transform the REAL "mission" of the congregations-in-question from expanding their membership to obtaining (end extending) the subsidies.

3. Likewise, this in turn tends to focus a lot of attention to "bean-counting" (and the half-hearted "implementation" of various "techniques" of church growth) rather than nuturing the "soul" at the center of every vibrant faith community: a profound sense of trust, hope, gratitude, generosity, mission and service to something larger than ourselves.

4. The two essential concepts regarding successful church growth (which one hears over and over again if you simply pay attention) are the importance of a mission-driven Vision and the indispensable role of committed Leadership. The REAL secret to creating successful "pastoral" sized churches (and then growing them to whatever size the environment allows) is the creation (and support) of effective, visionary Pastors. There's been a lot of talk in our movement lately about the so-called "Pastoral-to-Program" transition, but from where I sit the real problem tends to be the expectation that somehow large family-sized churches which are struggling against the upper-limits of that organizational style will somehow miraculously transform themselves into Program-style institutions seven times their size. But the reality on the ground is that we have a lot of congregations of 65 households (give or take, with an average attendance of about the same) who operate organizationally as if they were still 35 "families," and who need to figure out how become effective congregations with 100+ souls in the sanctuary on any given Sunday. Not "program" churches. Healthy "pastoral" churches.

5. Here's another counter-intuitive truth. Healthy "cat-sized" churches are actually much more stable, resilient, self-reliant and long-lived than many struggling "dogs," and are perfectly capable of cultivating and nurturing a deep and meaningful spiritual experience for their members and friends, as well as programming effectively in all five of the key areas of congregational life: Worship, Religious Education, Fellowship Activities, Social Action and Pastoral Care. Obviously these activities will look a little different in a congregation of 40 households than they do in a 1000 member (or a 300 member or even a 100 member) congregation. But that doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile. It's true: Family-sized churches like to do church "on the cheap." But when confronted with an environment of scarcity, frugality is an appropriate response (and yes, parsimony an ever-present danger). On the other hand, supporting a full-time, seminary-educated ordained "professional" minister is a huge financial burden for a congregation of 100 households (even with an average pledge in excess of $1200), especially when it is combined with other "normal" operating expenses like a mortgage, heat and electricity, office supplies, and part-time secretarial, music, religious education, and custodial staff. We can talk until we turn blue in the face about "prosperity" and "abundance," the "attitude of gratitude" and "creating congregations of generous people" (and believe me, I have). But the hard reality is that there are limits, and that creating an environment of "sustainable prosperity" within the parameters of those limitations (even as we work to extend or even transcend them) is no easy task. And simply throwing outside money at the problem only makes it worse, since it creates dependency and distorts the mission of the organization by changing the incentives. And who knew that I could sound so "Republican?"

6. A better alternative would be to change the way we "train" (as opposed to educate) our clergy, and also to change the way that we compensate them. Suppose that rather than providing money directly to congregations in order to subsidize the salaries of small-church ministers (at least until they have proven themselves worthy of moving on to a bigger one), or "loaning" clergy from "successful" large churches to "marginal" small ones, we first acknowledge that the skills required to be successful in small-church ministry are DIFFERENT than those we normally reward, and then create opportunities for clergy to learn those skills and form partnerships with small congregations which assume that the minister will also initially need some sort of "outside" employment in order to earn a living. Perhaps this outside employment could be as part-time program staff at a larger church or for the district; or perhaps it is simply some sort of fairly flexible secular employment. But now the incentive becomes to increase the church budget "the old-fashioned way," in order to be able to afford more of the minister's time and attention. Denominational money might still be appropriate in areas like health insurance subsidies (paid directly to the minister) or student loan deferments, as well as building loans, free training opportunities, and perhaps even "prize" money for good ideas that can be duplicated elsewhere. But the basic dynamic needs to be that the minister makes a sacrifice in order to serve the congregation, so that the congregation becomes willing to sacrifice in order to support THEIR minister...and that as PARTNERS they share a vision of the faith community they hope to create together. And the most important aspect of this dynamic is that the minister is a real leader within the church community, and not just an outside expert there to provide expertise (of dubious value) until a better-paying gig comes along.

7. As for the so-called "Pathways fiasco," there are generally important lessons to be learned even from an experiment that fails. But you would think that one of the first lessons would be not to do it again until you understand what went wrong the first time. I'm not really close enough to that situation to comment knowledgeably (not that I've ever let that stop me before), but I do know that when I first heard the idea (at General Assembly) of starting 50 "Pathways-style" congregations a year I was pretty skeptical, and that skepticism certainly hasn't been diminished by the course of subsequent events. On the other hand, I think Christine's idea of nurturing a litter of "puppies" from a central "mother" church has a lot more merit, and might potentially strengthen both parent and offspring. So, I'll be watching for news of new birth in the Land of Enchantment, all the while remembering my own experience in the 80's as the "Bishop of West Texas" -- the only settled UU minister between Fort Worth and El Paso, Austin and Albuquerque....