A Church With No Members?

A column I read today in The Presbyterian Outlook got my attention. Church-leadership consultant Tom Ehrich was writing about the declining popularity of church membership (“The New Age of Ad Hoc Connections,” Presbyterian Outlook, November 24, 2014).

While that may sound like bad news, he doesn’t think it’s necessarily so. It just reflects growing trends in the larger society against joining any kind of organization.

This is nothing new. Sociologists like Peter Berger have been telling us this for years. His famed bowling-leagues study documented how bowling has not diminished in popularity, although bowlers no longer like to join leagues and commit to being at the alley with their team one day per week.

The whole idea of “belonging” to a group just isn’t attractive anymore. Folks would rather go it alone, connecting with others in ad hoc ways as the need or opportunity arises.

“People are just living in different ways,” says Ehrich. “Not better or worse, just different. Wise church leaders will dial down the membership lingo and learn to offer a variety of venues, some of them ad hoc, where people can connect.”

As examples, he lists a number of brief-duration mission and service events churches have organized: packing seeds to send off to African farmers, building houses for Habitat for Humanity, delivering toys to needy children at Christmas, disaster-relief work, etc.

The membership rituals of the past hold little meaning, he goes on. “People today value groups and networks, but they want them to be free-flowing and ad hoc, centered in hanging out, last-minute planning and discovering new venues. This is an age of pop-up stores and restaurants.”

Could there ever be such a thing as a pop-up church? The Presbyterian Church is actually experimenting with such an idea, with its 1001 Worshiping Communities initiative. While not exactly pop-up churches, the new communities being fostered — based on informal gatherings in all sorts of places — do have something of that ad hoc quality. The idea is to experiment with new ways of being church together. Some of them may grow into recognizable congregations someday. Others may become something else altogether — but still a part of the Body of Christ.

Maybe Jesus himself provides a different standard. At the end of his Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, the king says: “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” (Matthew 25:35-36)

Not a hint, there, of letters of transfer.

Don’t worry so much about membership, Ehrich assures us. “Churches should ramp up their communications, so that when a need arises, they can send out a call for caring. Then just let people serve as they can, without imposing a membership expectation.”

But how, then, to measure our successes and failures? The answer, I suppose, is “We don’t.” At the end of the day, it’s not our successes that matter. It’s what the Holy Spirit is doing in our midst.

What do you think? Is church membership growing obsolete? If so, what’s emerging in its place?

Goodbye, Peacemaking. Hello, Peacemaking and Global Witness.

A familiar feature of World Communion Sunday, for quite a number of years, has been the annual Peacemaking Special Offering. One of the changes made at this year's General Assembly was to broaden the scope of this offering, so as to add a "Global Witness" component. Now, we're being asked to promote a "Peace and Global Witness" offering.

I remember hearing about the change when I was at the General Assembly, but honestly, it didn't make a big impression on me at the time, what with all the other issues the commissioners were wrestling with. It hit home a couple weeks ago, when our church secretary brought me the bulletin inserts for the special offering, so I could choose which one we'll be using on each Sunday leading up to the offering.

They looked different. Not only that, but the name of the offering - Peace and Global Witness - is a mouthful.

It struck me that this change makes the offering much more difficult to interpret. What is "global witness," anyway - and what relationship does it have to peacemaking? Peacemaking is a fairly clear concept (even though we've had to work hard, over the years, to broaden people's minds about the many and varied settings where Christians are called to make peace).

Not so for "global witness." What is it, anyway?

I think I understand the reason for the change - even though the promotional information on the offering's main website page is none too clear. Previously, receipts from the offering (at the General Assembly level, anyway - there's always been some money retained by congregations and presbyteries for local work) have been disbursed by the Presbyterian Peacemaking Program. Now, a portion of the offering money will be used by the Presbyterian Mission Agency as a whole, for global activities related to peace and justice ministries.

You have to drill down through the web pages until you come to a pdf file of a "Leader's Guide" before you can find out much about the activities that will be funded under the woolly concept of "Global Witness." To get to the Leader's Guide, you have to go through a process that looks like you're ordering literature to be mailed out (perhaps at a cost), but in fact, clicking on the button takes you right to the (free) pdf file. Navigating this portion of the website, though, is far from easy.

This is a mostly bureaucratic change, a way of moving money around from one account to another at the national level of the church. The effect is to tap some of that Peacemaking money to cover deficits in funding our mission co-workers and other vitally-important global mission activities. It still fits the general definition, of course, so no one can really argue with it. But I don't think it's the greatest idea, and here's why...

Any change that muddies the waters of how special offering money is used makes the offering more difficult to promote in local congregations. "Peacemaking" we can describe without too much difficulty. "Peacemaking and Global Witness," not so easily. In the bestiary of special offerings, it's a multi-headed monster.

We live in an age when givers are eager to designate their gifts, to know exactly how they're being used. When special offerings are combined into these multi-purpose causes - an attractive option, in this age of declining mission giving, to those who read balance sheets in denominational offices - the descriptions of the offering lose their punch. They no longer sound "special," or specific, in their focus. We lose the advantage, the unique appeal, of a special offering.

It makes me wonder what sort of research the General Assembly staff did before recommending the change - whether they conducted focus groups of pastors or church members, for example, to find out what sort of name-recognition goes along with the phrase "Global Witness."

In the long run, I predict that decision will reduce the amount of money given, overall.

That's a pastor's perspective, anyway, from the front lines of mission interpretation. I wonder how much the Mission Agency folks considered that front-line perspective, when they made their administrative decision to recommend this change to the General Assembly?

Executive Session

Every once in a while, a council must go into executive session.

So, what is an executive session? It's got two basic characteristics. First, no observers are present. Generally, only the members of the body, along with their officers (such as the moderator and the clerk of Session) remain in the room. Sessions can allow certain invited guests to be present, but this is uncommon. Second, the proceedings are confidential. No one's supposed to talk to anyone else later about what went on (although members of the body can discuss those things with one another, provided no one else is listening in).

There can be minutes of an executive session, but if there are minutes, they must be kept elsewhere than the regular minutes, because no one is allowed to see them but the members of the body. When it comes time to approve those minutes, the body must go into executive session a second time to do so.

Most Sessions find it easier simply not to pass any motions while in executive session. They talk about what they need to do, then go out of executive session and immediately pass whatever motions are needed. The action they have taken, then, is public, but the reasons behind the action are not.

It's hard to imagine a situation in which a body would need to pass a motion while in executive session, because it's hard to imagine implementing anything that's secret. Generally, the discuss-in-executive-session, then vote-in-regular-session procedure does the trick. Robert's Rules does allow for motions in executive session, though, just in case.

So, when should there be an executive session?

The short answer is, "as seldom as possible." Especially in the church, where transparency is generally the ideal.

Yet, there are situations in which it's a valuable option. Such as discussing delicate personnel matters. Or pondering how to respond to a member who may need ecclesiastical discipline. Or setting a range for bidding on a piece of real estate, when it's not to the church's advantage for a seller to know how high the church is willing to go.

If there are no observers in the meeting-room to begin with, a formal executive session may not be needed. The clerk simply needs to take care to limit what goes into the minutes (although motions must always be recorded). Yet, even if there are no observers to ask to leave the room, an executive session may still be useful, if only to impress upon the Session members the need for confidentiality.

Just one more useful item in the parliamentary toolbox.

Summary of General Assembly Action on Divestment

The following summary was put together by members of the General Assembly Mission Agency staff:

Summary of General Assembly Action on Divestment

The 221st General Assembly (2014) voted by a narrow margin to divest from three U.S. companies— Caterpillar, Hewlett Packard, and Motorola Solutions—whose products are used to further the Israeli occupation of Palestine. The assembly’s vote was 310-303.
     o These non-peaceful activities are inconsistent with the church’s socially responsible investment policy. The church does not believe it should profit from the occupation.
     o Caterpillar provides bulldozers used in the destruction of Palestinian homes and for clearing land of fruit and olive tree groves.
     o Hewlett Packard provides electronic systems at checkpoints, logistics and communications systems to support the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip, as well as business relationships with illegal settlements in the West Bank.
     o Motorola Solutions provides military communications and surveillance systems in illegal Israeli settlements.
     o The church’s committee on socially responsible investing has been engaged with these companies for more than a decade urging change in these corporate activities with no results.
     o This action is not divestment from Israel; the church has other significant investments in Israeli organizations which it will maintain.



     o The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is explicit in:
     - Affirming the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign nation within secure and internationally recognized borders.
     - Advocating for the right of Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace, free from threats or acts of force.
     - Declaring that this action does not indicate alignment with the overall global Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) movement.
     - Regarding Zionism Unsettled, the assembly declared that the publication does not represent the views of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) but that it will continue to be available through the online store.

     o In the past year, the church has made several positive investments in economic development in Palestine.
     o The measure also reaffirms the PC(USA)’s commitment to interfaith dialogue and partnerships
with the American Jewish and Muslim friends, and with Palestinian Christians.

Charles Wiley described it in this way:
     o “Love your neighbor as yourself.” We are trying to love two neighbors at the same time. In the midst of these two loves, we are compelled to speak for justice for what is occurring in the occupation. We refuse to choose between these two neighbors, even if our specific choices are difficult for one of our neighbors to understand.

Summary of General Assembly Action on Marriage

The following summary was put together by the General Assembly Mission Agency staff:

Summary of General Assembly Action on Marriage

The 221st General Assembly took two actions regarding marriage:

1. The first was an Authoritative Interpretation allowing pastoral discretion to conduct
same-gender marriages in states where such marriages are legal. This went into effect
immediately on conclusion of the General Assembly.
     o The action that passed by a vote of 371 to 238.
     o Teaching elders are empowered to use their discretion in performing marriage
ceremonies, including civil unions permitted by the law and have the
responsibility to assess the readiness of a couple to be married.
     o This action expressly does not require that congregations, sessions, or teaching
elders perform civil unions or same-gender marriages. Congregations and their
sessions still have the right to decide what happens in their facilities.

2. The second was a recommendation to change language in the Book of Order to indicate
that “marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man
and a woman.”
     o The Book of Order change requires the approval of a majority of presbyteries
within the next year.
     o The action that passed by a vote of 429 to 175.

Both decisions came with much discussion and prayer on the part of the General Assembly
commissioners.

We continue to be in dialogue, both in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) and among our
international partners. We will not end relations with a mission partner because of differing
opinions and pray that those who may disagree with this action will remain in relationship to
continue the work of the church.

Tips on Talking to the Media

Wendy Bailey, our Regional Presbyter, has posted some excellent advice on speaking to reporters. Experience has shown that, as the General Assembly makes some of its more controversial decisions, pastors may find themselves contacted by newspaper reporters and other media people, to get their views on the issue.

Publicity is good for local churches, and most pastors I know are more than happy to get the names of their church in the news. In this situation, however, it's important to be precise and thoughtful in replying to questions. Off-the-cuff responses can be easily misinterpreted or taken out of context.

So, it's a good thing to think in advance about what to say. Wendy's best piece of advice, in fact, may be that it's OK to ask the reporter to call back a few minutes later, to buy yourself a little time to formulate a response or scribble out a few rough talking-points for yourself. (Don't wait too long, though, because the reporter probably has a deadline looming.)

Please remember, too, that Wendy and I are more than willing to talk to reporters, if you want to refer them to us. You may also want to suggest that they talk to one of the Presbytery's commissioners to General Assembly. Monmouth's commissioners this year are the the Rev. Doug Chase, Brick; the Rev. Barbara Hicks, Lakewood Hope; Beverly Marsh, East Brunswick; Jim McGuire, Point Pleasant; and Young Adult Advisory Delegate Peter Stelljes, Yardville.

Now, here's Wendy's advice:

As we prepare for General Assembly, it is not unreasonable to expect that commissioners or pastors or presbytery leaders will be called upon to interpret the actions of the Assembly or explain what’s going on.  We will do our best to keep everyone informed of the many happenings of the assembly here on this blog … but I thought it might be a good time to share some tips I’ve put together for dealing with reporters and the media.

There are many times in which leaders in congregations and pastors will be called by the media for comment or information. Whether it’s a crisis or disaster in your congregation or community, an opinion on local politics or social issue, or a decision of the national or regional church, there are tips to make the interview more effective.

1. KNOW THE RIGHT PERSON

Depending on the issue, you may or may not be the best person to speak to the reporter. If your congregation is dealing with a crisis or emergency it is a good idea to identify one person who can answer questions and interview with the media. If you are not that person, it is appropriate to say something like, “I understand you have a lot of questions, the best person to speak to is …” and then give them the name and contact information for that person.

2. PREPARE

If you are the right person to speak, but you are not prepared to talk to the reporter when they call, it’s appropriate to say something like, “I will be happy to talk to you, this is not the best time, I will call you back.” You will also want to ask the scope of the story and ask yourself if there’s anything else you need to know from them in order to prepare. Find out, too, when the deadline is, so that you can reply in a timely manner. Then gather your thoughts, facts and information before calling back.

3. CALL BACK QUICKLY

Reporters are all working on very quick deadlines. Be sure you get back to them as soon as you can. If you miss their deadline, or they move on to someone else, the story will be told without you. If you get back to them right away, even to explain what is keeping you from giving the interview right away, you will be establishing a good rapport with the reporter which will help you in this story and the longer term relationship.

4. TALKING POINTS

Prepare the message you want to get across and make a list of talking points. Remember that although the reporter is gathering a story, you are the one who is telling it. Tell it the way you want it reported.

5. KEEP IT SIMPLE

Think of the words you want to use to explain the issue or situation, but keep your points simple and concise. Remember that electronic media are looking for sound bites … seconds, not minutes, and newspaper reporters and bloggers are looking for quotes. Give them to them. Make their job easy. Most reporters are writing for a large and diverse audience, so this is not the time to use “church-ease” “presbyterian-speak” or show off your post graduate vocabulary

6. LISTEN CAREFULLY

Be sure that you understand the question that you’re being asked and be sure to answer that question. The question may help to suggest ways to focus or phrase your response.

7. TELL THE TRUTH

This sounds like it shouldn’t need to be said, but if there’s bad news or a bad situation, it’s ok to acknowledge that. Be direct and authentic about the situation and how you feel about it

8. BE READY TO EXPLAIN

Most reporters, even those focusing on religion, have no idea how churches operate, let alone the Presbyterian Church. Be prepared to explain even the most basic ideas to them, respecting their competency in the process.

9. DON’T ARGUE

Again, this shouldn’t need to be articulated, but it may be that the natural response is to say something snarky or argue with the reporter. Don’t do this. Always remain respectful.

10. BE PROACTIVE

If there is a story brewing that you know you will be called on, don’t hesitate to make the first step by creating a press release or calling your local reporter. This gives you the ability to shape the story. You can even suggest headlines that better capture the mood and ideas that you think are important about the story. The more work you do for the reporter the more likely the story will run as you would like.

Live Internet streaming of the General Assembly

Live streaming of the 221st General Assembly, meeting in Detroit, Michigan from Saturday, June 14 through Saturday, June 21, is available online on the PCUSA website.

A pdf version of the summary of the General Assembly schedule can be found here.

Only plenary sessions (meetings of the whole General Assembly) will be streamed. That means the only streaming on Sunday, June 15 will be from 2:30-4:30 pm, and there will be no live streaming at all on Monday or Tuesday, June 16-17, because that's when the General Assembly committees will be meeting.

Most observers have found that the most interesting time to watch live streaming is on Saturday evening (June 14), when the new moderator will be elected, and, later, on Wednesday evening (June 18) and all day Thursday and Friday (June 19-20).

It's not clear at this time when the various committees will be reporting. although this information will be available later in the week on PC-Biz. (Search for "docket" under the Explorer tab, or search for the Bills & Overtures Committee report (which recommends docket amendments).

In past years, the most controversial items have been scheduled for Friday afternoon and evening. If there are more than 2 or 3 controversial items, one of them may be scheduled for Thursday as well.