There is an unspoken and unrecognized reason for some of that inaction. And that is the alignment of our denomination with the issues of the Democratic party. Conservative Republicans find themselves walking on eggshells. Incessant harangues over open borders, use of energy, global warming and diversity dominate our publications, deliberations and ministries. We even have an office to promote socialism under the guise of justice.
Several years ago, I asked my daughter, who had been active in politics before she bought her store, why she had backed away from it. She looked at me and asked, "Why would I alienate half of my customers?"
The CRC is alienating half of our members. We are also cutting the number of potential converts in our evangelism efforts. It seems like before someone joins our church, we have to convert them from Republican to Democrat before they can feel comfortable in our circles. Like many of my friends, I admit to curtailing my participation because I do not want to argue or be made to feel defensive all the time. And the enthusiasm to support Democratic kingdom causes is evident in the lagging ministry shares.
The CRC has lost the ability to minister to Republicans. The church fails to recognize or respect the biblical grounds for Republican positions. So, we toss the Banner as soon as it comes. We show up on Sunday morning, because we feel that obligation, but feel alienated except around a few friends who share our perspectives.
Maybe someday, we can find that our shared commitment to our Lord's work supersedes these differences. Perhaps tolerance for other perspectives (or at least keeping guiet about them) can once again characterize our fellowship. Then we can participate with enthusiasm.
Todd, I really appreciate your concerns about the "bigger issues" in my life. But just to put your mind at ease, as a layman, I average about 30 hours a week in activities in our local church. I also grow about 2000 pounds of food for the local food bank.
That said, I carefully avoid church activities related, for example, to climate change. As far as I can tell, it has enriched Al Gore immensely, it is based on fictitious data, it will immeasurably harm those in poverty and the temperature has actually been going down for 17 years. I refuse to be part of a lie, even if the denomination has defined climate change as the work of the Lord. Now if that is resisting the authority of the church, and/or refusing to join with the people of God in doing the work of the Lord everywhere, I will humbly endure the discipline process.
My larger point, is that we need, both as a denomination and as individuals to avoid being a stumbling block by taking such stands. We need to focus, especially as a denomination, on our love for our Lord which binds us together and avoid those things that would tear us apart especially now when so many issues have become politicized.
There is a little mentioned item (Article 75, Page 806) passed by Synod in 2012. It was in response to my rather vigorous objection to the adoption of the stance on Creation Stewardship and my concern for the kind of rift that taking such a position would create. I was concerned then as now about ostracizing a significant portion of our current and future membership. In response to Lou's query on what keeps members on the sidelines, I believe that any time we strongly advocate for or against a non-salvation issue, we risk driving an unnecessary wedge between members of the body. That triggers a fight or flight syndrome and too often it is flight.
While Global Warming is one obvious example of an issue that can be used as a wedge, many positions claimed by one political faction or another run the same risk.
Members with divergent opinions can work well together in growing God's kingdom so long as there is a demonstrable commitment, in love, not to provoke each other. That would go a long ways in encouraging participation in church activities.
That person may be permanently banned from leadership positions, but I doubt in a few years that such a ban will be remembered.
In my experience, one of the reasons it is so hard to modify a congregational culture or to carry through on any commitment is the rotating tenure of the office bearers. A well intentioned commitment, for example to improve pastor/congregation relations, may enjoy majority support in year one, but in year two, only two thirds remember the need or the urgency. In year three, only one third remembers and in year four, only the pastor remembers what the thinking was. Especially with Council officers changing every year, our churches have little institutional memory. And when the pastor leaves, that memory too is gone.
Over more years than I care to remember, I have participated in goal setting and long term planning with increasing skepticism as plan after plan has been forgotten or superseded. In my opinion, any planning effort, such as improving pastor/congregation relations or accepting recommendations from consultants, or even goals to increase the size of the fellowship, is a waste of time unless it is institutionalized into the structure of the church where a small standing committee has long term ownership and reports regularly to the then current Council.
Perhaps we need to look at a role such as Executive Director in each church to give some stability and institutional memory.
The church needs to be extremely cautious when taking a stand on contentious issues because it can be highly destructive. In 2012 we took a corporate stand on Global warming.
Now, we have liberal Democrats insisting that pastors preach on the topic. And when they do, conservative Republicans are squirming in the pews because they believe most of it is based on a hoax to make Al Gore richer. But during the sermon there is no format to voice an objection. So alienation is the result.
By raising the profile of Global Warming in our churches, we have shattered the intimacy of conversations between Christians because we do not want to offend each other. We are walking on egg shells rather than enjoying the communion of the saints. In such an atmosphere of tension, we only talk to those who agree with us and avoid interacting with any others. Doing church becomes something to be avoided rather than embraced.
And finally, when a significant portion of the membership finds itself in disagreement with the stand of the denomination, the support of Ministry Shares becomes a lower priority. In some cases it may be a deliberate effort to starve our Denominational Offices, but more likely it is hard to support something one feels is wrong and so begins the effort to find other Kingdom causes. And our support of Missionaries drops to 10%.
This has been the cost to the CRCNA as a result of the vote in 2012 so far and it continues to reek havoc within our congregations. Yet we persist.
Why not focus on those things we have in common, like our love for our Lord and our passion to witness to that love.
Bill, I share a number of concerns with you. Some of it is certainly my ignorance so please bear with me.
How are the salaries set? If I am a skilled fund raiser and raise, say $500,000. Is World Missions liable for $50,000? Can I hire a fund raising firm with the needed expertise? What part of the $500,000 is taxable? In which country? Who audits the expenditure of the $500,000? Who handles the withholding? Can I apply for tax exempt status as a stand alone entity? Can I put my wife on the payroll?
It seems to me that at 10%, there is insufficient leverage to,"call the tune." At some point, the individual is no longer a CRC missionary, but rather a free lancer. In addition, the potential for fraud is quite apparent. And, if we exert control over employment conditions, does the CRC have liability?
And please stop whining about diminishing ministry shares. We stood by and watched a third of our denomination (mostly the conservative, reliable givers) walk away over the women in office controversy. Now, we are doing the same thing with the hyper environmentalists. If we cannot find ways to embrace those that think a bit differently, then we must be prepared to cut all denominational programs in half, again and again. Those decisions have consequences.
I am not cynical, but my orientation is sales/business. From that perspective, we sometimes do some really dumb things.
If our missionaries only receive 10% of their support from the CRC, are they CRC missionaries? If 40% of the remaining support comes from well meaning Lutherans and the other 50% from socially concerned Episcopalians or Catholics, are they really our missionaries? Do we have any supervisory authority over their work or their theology? And if not, what is the point of CRWM? Local churches can just as easily send contributions directly to the missionaries and eliminate the overhead of a central office.
I am still trying to come to grips with what Synod's decision means.
Do we need to have a purge of pastors who do not assent to Synod's position on global warming? Do we need to add a phrase to the Covenent with Office Bearers? Do we need to ask office bearers to resign or not to allow their names to be put in nomination if they are not believers in global warming? Do we need to question our Sunday School teachers and small group leaders to be sure they are in line? Do we need to warn or discipline those parents who keep their kids out of Sunday School because they do not want them taught about global warming? Do we want to restrict our evangelism efforts to those who are true believers - in global warming? Do we want to deny membership to converts or transfers from other churches who do not subscribe? Do we want to suggest to current members that they no longer have a place in our fellowship because they are not believers in global warming?
If the answer to any of these is no, then, I am afraid that Synod has marginalized its role and authority.
I think the focus of this upcoming Thanksgiving season should be praise and joyful thanks that for fifteen years there has been no global warming. The scare tactics that even penetrated to Synod should be recognized as the hoax they really are. We need to thank the Master of the Universe, our Lord, that we can again use the abundant and inexpensive fossil fuels that he has given to us without the guilt complexes that some would like to impose. We need to give thanks that we can, once again, use these resources to generate the jobs and the incomes that fuel joyful giving for His work in this His world. And we need to be thankful that the resources we have been diverting into much more expensive energy alternative can now be used to show the love of our Lord to those in need. This should be the greatest Thanksgiving ever for our denomination.
If 86% consider the sermon as the central part of Sunday worship, it would seem that the decision on joining a church, or even attending on a given Sunday is a function of the characteristics of the sermon, and by inference, of the efforts of pastor in preparing and delivering that sermon. If true, that would lay the responsibility for church growth largely on the shoulders of the pastor. Is that another one of the take aways of this study?
As a lay leader, I would like to see a stronger focus on management systems, motivation and budgeting. In my experience, the difference between top down leadership and management by exception is the difference between dysfunctional and contentious council meetings and a cordial sharing of the great things God is doing in the fellowship. It is the difference between continually begging the same folks to step forward and the joyful experience of seeing nearly every member owning their program and contributing to the kingdom in a way that utilizes their unique gifts. And the role of the pastor requires familiarity with "corporate" budgeting and financial controls as a means of advancing the mission of the church in the community.
Posted in: Activating the Inactive
There is an unspoken and unrecognized reason for some of that inaction. And that is the alignment of our denomination with the issues of the Democratic party. Conservative Republicans find themselves walking on eggshells. Incessant harangues over open borders, use of energy, global warming and diversity dominate our publications, deliberations and ministries. We even have an office to promote socialism under the guise of justice.
Several years ago, I asked my daughter, who had been active in politics before she bought her store, why she had backed away from it. She looked at me and asked, "Why would I alienate half of my customers?"
The CRC is alienating half of our members. We are also cutting the number of potential converts in our evangelism efforts. It seems like before someone joins our church, we have to convert them from Republican to Democrat before they can feel comfortable in our circles. Like many of my friends, I admit to curtailing my participation because I do not want to argue or be made to feel defensive all the time. And the enthusiasm to support Democratic kingdom causes is evident in the lagging ministry shares.
The CRC has lost the ability to minister to Republicans. The church fails to recognize or respect the biblical grounds for Republican positions. So, we toss the Banner as soon as it comes. We show up on Sunday morning, because we feel that obligation, but feel alienated except around a few friends who share our perspectives.
Maybe someday, we can find that our shared commitment to our Lord's work supersedes these differences. Perhaps tolerance for other perspectives (or at least keeping guiet about them) can once again characterize our fellowship. Then we can participate with enthusiasm.
Posted in: Activating the Inactive
Todd, I really appreciate your concerns about the "bigger issues" in my life. But just to put your mind at ease, as a layman, I average about 30 hours a week in activities in our local church. I also grow about 2000 pounds of food for the local food bank.
That said, I carefully avoid church activities related, for example, to climate change. As far as I can tell, it has enriched Al Gore immensely, it is based on fictitious data, it will immeasurably harm those in poverty and the temperature has actually been going down for 17 years. I refuse to be part of a lie, even if the denomination has defined climate change as the work of the Lord. Now if that is resisting the authority of the church, and/or refusing to join with the people of God in doing the work of the Lord everywhere, I will humbly endure the discipline process.
My larger point, is that we need, both as a denomination and as individuals to avoid being a stumbling block by taking such stands. We need to focus, especially as a denomination, on our love for our Lord which binds us together and avoid those things that would tear us apart especially now when so many issues have become politicized.
Posted in: Activating the Inactive
Todd
Thanks for your response and apology.
There is a little mentioned item (Article 75, Page 806) passed by Synod in 2012. It was in response to my rather vigorous objection to the adoption of the stance on Creation Stewardship and my concern for the kind of rift that taking such a position would create. I was concerned then as now about ostracizing a significant portion of our current and future membership. In response to Lou's query on what keeps members on the sidelines, I believe that any time we strongly advocate for or against a non-salvation issue, we risk driving an unnecessary wedge between members of the body. That triggers a fight or flight syndrome and too often it is flight.
While Global Warming is one obvious example of an issue that can be used as a wedge, many positions claimed by one political faction or another run the same risk.
Members with divergent opinions can work well together in growing God's kingdom so long as there is a demonstrable commitment, in love, not to provoke each other. That would go a long ways in encouraging participation in church activities.
Warm regards,
Ed
Posted in: Enough is Enough
That person may be permanently banned from leadership positions, but I doubt in a few years that such a ban will be remembered.
In my experience, one of the reasons it is so hard to modify a congregational culture or to carry through on any commitment is the rotating tenure of the office bearers. A well intentioned commitment, for example to improve pastor/congregation relations, may enjoy majority support in year one, but in year two, only two thirds remember the need or the urgency. In year three, only one third remembers and in year four, only the pastor remembers what the thinking was. Especially with Council officers changing every year, our churches have little institutional memory. And when the pastor leaves, that memory too is gone.
Over more years than I care to remember, I have participated in goal setting and long term planning with increasing skepticism as plan after plan has been forgotten or superseded. In my opinion, any planning effort, such as improving pastor/congregation relations or accepting recommendations from consultants, or even goals to increase the size of the fellowship, is a waste of time unless it is institutionalized into the structure of the church where a small standing committee has long term ownership and reports regularly to the then current Council.
Perhaps we need to look at a role such as Executive Director in each church to give some stability and institutional memory.
Posted in: The Voice of The Church in Society
The church needs to be extremely cautious when taking a stand on contentious issues because it can be highly destructive. In 2012 we took a corporate stand on Global warming.
Now, we have liberal Democrats insisting that pastors preach on the topic. And when they do, conservative Republicans are squirming in the pews because they believe most of it is based on a hoax to make Al Gore richer. But during the sermon there is no format to voice an objection. So alienation is the result.
By raising the profile of Global Warming in our churches, we have shattered the intimacy of conversations between Christians because we do not want to offend each other. We are walking on egg shells rather than enjoying the communion of the saints. In such an atmosphere of tension, we only talk to those who agree with us and avoid interacting with any others. Doing church becomes something to be avoided rather than embraced.
And finally, when a significant portion of the membership finds itself in disagreement with the stand of the denomination, the support of Ministry Shares becomes a lower priority. In some cases it may be a deliberate effort to starve our Denominational Offices, but more likely it is hard to support something one feels is wrong and so begins the effort to find other Kingdom causes. And our support of Missionaries drops to 10%.
This has been the cost to the CRCNA as a result of the vote in 2012 so far and it continues to reek havoc within our congregations. Yet we persist.
Why not focus on those things we have in common, like our love for our Lord and our passion to witness to that love.
Posted in: Synod World Missions: Missionaries to Raise 90% of Their Salaries
Bill, I share a number of concerns with you. Some of it is certainly my ignorance so please bear with me.
How are the salaries set? If I am a skilled fund raiser and raise, say $500,000. Is World Missions liable for $50,000? Can I hire a fund raising firm with the needed expertise? What part of the $500,000 is taxable? In which country? Who audits the expenditure of the $500,000? Who handles the withholding? Can I apply for tax exempt status as a stand alone entity? Can I put my wife on the payroll?
It seems to me that at 10%, there is insufficient leverage to,"call the tune." At some point, the individual is no longer a CRC missionary, but rather a free lancer. In addition, the potential for fraud is quite apparent. And, if we exert control over employment conditions, does the CRC have liability?
And please stop whining about diminishing ministry shares. We stood by and watched a third of our denomination (mostly the conservative, reliable givers) walk away over the women in office controversy. Now, we are doing the same thing with the hyper environmentalists. If we cannot find ways to embrace those that think a bit differently, then we must be prepared to cut all denominational programs in half, again and again. Those decisions have consequences.
I am not cynical, but my orientation is sales/business. From that perspective, we sometimes do some really dumb things.
Posted in: Synod World Missions: Missionaries to Raise 90% of Their Salaries
Just a thought.
If our missionaries only receive 10% of their support from the CRC, are they CRC missionaries? If 40% of the remaining support comes from well meaning Lutherans and the other 50% from socially concerned Episcopalians or Catholics, are they really our missionaries? Do we have any supervisory authority over their work or their theology? And if not, what is the point of CRWM? Local churches can just as easily send contributions directly to the missionaries and eliminate the overhead of a central office.
Posted in: When Churches Start Becoming Experts on Pipelines, Does That Mean Oil Companies Can Become Experts on Theology?
I am still trying to come to grips with what Synod's decision means.
Do we need to have a purge of pastors who do not assent to Synod's position on global warming? Do we need to add a phrase to the Covenent with Office Bearers? Do we need to ask office bearers to resign or not to allow their names to be put in nomination if they are not believers in global warming? Do we need to question our Sunday School teachers and small group leaders to be sure they are in line? Do we need to warn or discipline those parents who keep their kids out of Sunday School because they do not want them taught about global warming? Do we want to restrict our evangelism efforts to those who are true believers - in global warming? Do we want to deny membership to converts or transfers from other churches who do not subscribe? Do we want to suggest to current members that they no longer have a place in our fellowship because they are not believers in global warming?
If the answer to any of these is no, then, I am afraid that Synod has marginalized its role and authority.
Posted in: A Christian’s Perspective on Caring for Creation?
I think the focus of this upcoming Thanksgiving season should be praise and joyful thanks that for fifteen years there has been no global warming. The scare tactics that even penetrated to Synod should be recognized as the hoax they really are. We need to thank the Master of the Universe, our Lord, that we can again use the abundant and inexpensive fossil fuels that he has given to us without the guilt complexes that some would like to impose. We need to give thanks that we can, once again, use these resources to generate the jobs and the incomes that fuel joyful giving for His work in this His world. And we need to be thankful that the resources we have been diverting into much more expensive energy alternative can now be used to show the love of our Lord to those in need. This should be the greatest Thanksgiving ever for our denomination.
Posted in: Sermon-Centricity on Sunday
If 86% consider the sermon as the central part of Sunday worship, it would seem that the decision on joining a church, or even attending on a given Sunday is a function of the characteristics of the sermon, and by inference, of the efforts of pastor in preparing and delivering that sermon. If true, that would lay the responsibility for church growth largely on the shoulders of the pastor. Is that another one of the take aways of this study?
Posted in: Leadership in Ministry Course - Your Input Needed
As a lay leader, I would like to see a stronger focus on management systems, motivation and budgeting. In my experience, the difference between top down leadership and management by exception is the difference between dysfunctional and contentious council meetings and a cordial sharing of the great things God is doing in the fellowship. It is the difference between continually begging the same folks to step forward and the joyful experience of seeing nearly every member owning their program and contributing to the kingdom in a way that utilizes their unique gifts. And the role of the pastor requires familiarity with "corporate" budgeting and financial controls as a means of advancing the mission of the church in the community.
Thank you for asking.
Posted in: Why Don't We Sing In Worship?
Has it occured to anyone else that something as old fashioned as four part harmony means there is a place, and a need, for everyone in the music?