October 14, 2020

Thoughts form Pr David

Last week I wrote about the late Rev. Phyllis Tickle’s theory that the Church experiences paradigm shifts every 500 years. I explained that a paradigm is a way of thinking which guides just about everything we do, and when it is challenged, or worse yet cast aside to address a new reality, it can be earth-shattering. The Church is presently living in one of these shifts. Whereas up to the last quarter of the 20thcentury the Church enjoyed a position of privilege in society, it now is challenged to have any relevance at all in the unfolding 21st century. Up to the Vietnam War and the resulting distrust of institutions through the sexual scandals which rocked the Church in the 80s and 90s, the Church was central to life in the US. That can hardly be said now. Thus is a shock to those of us who remember the time when….

Our Wednesday evening sessions with Pr. Fred Lehr are helping us understand what has happened, and what we might do to stay true to our central beliefs, while at the same time be present for people in their journeys of faith. Session #4 is this Wednesday at 6PM in the sanctuary or live on our YouTube channel, Trinity Loving Community. You can find the previous sessions there as well. It’s imperative that as many of us who care about Trinity join in the discussion!

Recently, an interesting article came across my desk which I found very pertinent to the discussion. Many of you may remember the Alban Institute. It was a consulting group based in Washington, D.C. Its goal was to help congregations in their mission in general, but especially to be there for congregations experiencing conflict or crisis. After Pr. Eric’s untimely death, Trinity received help from the Alban Institute. Unfortunately, the Alban Institute went out of existence a few years ago. Its services were top-flight but extremely expensive, and few congregations could afford the Institute’s services in these challenging times. However, several former staff members joined in 2014 to form a new organization called Congregational Consulting Group. Articles about congregational life are sent out frequently.

The article I am referring to and wish to reproduce in this article (and the next few weeks) is entitled Five Assumptions Failing Us Now. It was sent by email to subscribers on September 8, 2020. The author is Susan Beaumont, one of the founders of Congregational Consulting Group. She is the author of several books and a nationally recognized expert on congregational organization. I had the privilege of taking a continuing education course with her quite a few years ago, when the Alban Institute was still in existence. The topic of that course was “learning how to supervise a staff ministry”. I am finding the skills I learned there to be helpful in my role as Senior Pastor here at Trinity.

I looked carefully at the article itself and the group’s website to see if the material was copyrighted and saw nothing restricting its use. Moreover, it is sent free-of-charge to anyone who wishes to become a subscriber which you, too, can do by visitingcongregationalconsulting.org. I therefore am going to reproduce it, rather than simply digest it for you. I think you will find this interesting, and hopefully informative, as to why discernment is so critically important for Trinity at this moment. If I end up in jail for copyright infringement, please visit me!

Here is the introduction and the first of those five assumptions we have previously made which now are failing us. Think paradigm shift!


Growth in membership is the primary indicator of congregational health and vitality.” The pandemic is challenging this and other longstanding assumptions about engagement, belonging, and membership. We must carefully examine all of our assumptions—otherwise, we risk creating barriers to belonging for people trying to engage with us in new ways.

During the pandemic, people are finding meaningful new ways to connect with us online in worship, programs, and service. These connections do not look anything like what we previously recognized as engagement.

We are eager to return to our buildings and in-person interaction, because that is what we are designed to do. However, online church is here to stay. As we return to our buildings, many congregations will maintain an online presence because not everyone is ready or able to return to physical spaces. Even some of our longest-standing members are discovering that they prefer virtual engagement for some parts of church life.

What happens to our newly-formed online communities as we return to our buildings? Do online participants become second-class citizens? If we do not examine our unstated assumptions about belonging, we risk losing our newest constituents, or relegating them to a “lesser” status.

In the paragraphs that follow, I will challenge five long-standing assumptions about belonging, engagement and membership that are crumbling now. No doubt you can name others.


Geography dictates belonging.

Pull out a map and draw a five-mile circle around the church building. We have long believed that this circle represents the pool from which we draw our constituents. People will not drive more than 20 minutes to engage a church -right?

The pandemic has shifted our reality. In the time we have been out of our buildings many of us have discovered new constituent relationships that have nothing to do with geography.

It is delightful to consider that we are no longer limited by physical boundaries. However, this raises new questions about how we define our identity and our context. Who are we now? Who do we serve now? What, if anything, does membership mean to someone who does not interact in our physical space? Is their engagement less important to us than the people who are physically present?

The basic question being asked here is what did it mean to be a neighborhood church in former days. What does it mean to be a neighborhood church now? Was Trinity ever a neighborhood church? Should it try to be now in the pandemic era? What does this mean for evangelism?


Discipleship begins with membership

Once upon a time, new-member assimilation was the primary means by which people were drawn into discipleship and set onto a path of faith development and spiritual growth. People came to worship first, and then they joined the church. Then they were drawn into true belonging. Through participation in the life of the church—on the other side of their decision to join—people were guided inward in faith and outward in service and leadership.

Now the journey often works in reverse. People connect with us in order to serve, and service helps them to belong. People need to feel that they belong before they join. Some people are not interested in membership at all. They may or may not attend worship. People are finding ways to belong outside the bonds of membership. But certain parts of the discipleship journey—such as serving in leadership—are traditionally denied to non-members.

Many of us have failed to alter our discipleship process to reflect these shifting realities. Now we have no choice but to let this failed assumption die. We are obliged to disciple people who are finding us online. Their engagement will not look like the journey described above. What will it mean to belong for those who have no relationship to our physical space or our physical gatherings?


Worship participation is the best indicator of member engagement.

This assumption has not been true for a while, but you would not know it from the records we keep and the metrics we obsess over. When asked how large a congregation is, we describe something about the size of the membership body or the average weekend worship attendance. Both metrics have been faltering as effective measures of the engaged body. Engaged people are worshipping with less frequency and many people who belong to the congregation do not become members.

Virtual worship is posing new challenges for our reporting systems. We might be able to tell how many devices are logged on to a worship service or class, but we do not know how many people are engaged at the logged-on site. And we do not know anything about the nature of their engagement.

We need new ways of measuring and talking about engagement now. What does authentic engagement look like in a virtual world? How will we measure and track it? What are the levels of engagement that we are trying to lead people through and how does that relate to their discipleship?


In-person engagement is more authentic than online engagement.

“When will we be able to get back to real worship?” This is a common question posed by those who find sacred space in physical sanctuaries. The question reveals an assumption that the virtual worship experiences we are having are less than authentic. Certainly, some people feel that way.

However, new people finding their way to us online probably do not share this assumption. They are finding something sacred in the virtual interaction and the space from which they engage that interaction—their home.

As we re-enter our buildings, it behooves us to remember that there are people who want to worship, learn, and serve with us, but they are not interested in our buildings.

The virtual experience raises another distinction to consider. Some worship experiences are pre-recorded. Others are offered live, but they are also recorded for more convenient viewing later. People can worship and learn in a time and space that is different from the time and space of the teacher. Does it matter to us whether people are engaging life in the church synchronously or asynchronously? Is an asynchronous worshiper a lesser engaged constituent?


Belonging requires owning the “whole “ church.

Historically, choosing to become a member of a congregation included a commitment to support the full ministry of the congregation. No one is expected to participate in every aspect of congregational life. However, members are expected to understand, support, and financially underwrite the full ministry of the church. If you are not a member, not much is really expected of you.

The pandemic is drawing this assumption, also, into question. Many people who have found their way to us through online worship, service projects, or online classes may have little interest in the full ministry of our congregation. However, we should not dismiss their availability or willingness to support some part of the church that is meaningful to them.

Pr David