Part II

2010 Steering Committee Report

 

What We Experienced:

Over the winter/spring of 2007, we visited 8 different mid-sized Presbyterian churches ranging in size from 100 to 300 in average attendance. We attended both early and late services, and a variety of adult and youth Sunday School classes. In general, we met with pastors (and upon occasion church leaders) immediately following worship. These sessions with clergy were most insightful. Pastors were happy to make time for us and all were remarkably candid. These meetings ran from 45 to 90 minutes. Following these meetings we gathered for lunch to discuss our impressions of the church just visited.

Two of the churches we visited were led by women. Two were theologically conservative and were led by pastors unhappy with the present course of the denomination. Two were led by pastors who followed a 30 year pastorate -- most helpful, as this will be the situation at RPC when our pastor retires in 10 years. Two had dysfunction that became noticeable to most during the visit. One was growing in numbers. Many were wrestling with decline, had no answers and were anxious. One had an entirely contemporary worship service, one was entirely traditional -- with the rest being an uncomfortable mixture of both. One (the last one we visited) stood head and shoulders above the other seven in almost every way.

Welcome varied depending upon who was met upon entrance, or where one sat during worship. We found each church had cold spots and warm spots, and quickly came to realize how utterly essential welcome is to the overall worship experience. Indeed, we now have 12 people of RPC who know how it feels to be left unwelcomed (and who, therefore, will never notice a visitor to RPC and then uncomfortably look away from the visitor -- so sadly common). Even our pastor, who has pushed welcoming often, was not aware of the actual import of the welcome. This discovery alone made the visitation worth it.

Buildings varied. Most had one primary entrance for all Sunday activities. All but one were equipped with a large narthex that enhanced welcome, fellowship and ministry. Some had chancels that were quite large, with furnishings that were movable and easily rearranged. Everyone had nicer bathrooms than RPC. Some buildings were very clean, some rather dirty -- noticeable, at once. Most struggled with buildings that were too small and some had serious and costly infrastructure problems. Odd but helpful and must be mentioned: the church with the dirtiest building, severe infrastructure problems, poor parking, bad entry ways, utterly traditional worship and smallest attendance was, by far, the most exciting and interesting church we visited!

Worship varied, but what we learned foremost (and to our surprise) was that the style of worship mattered far less than did the spirit of the worshipers in the room. The service that was entirely contemporary had the same delightful spirit that was found the very next week at a completely traditional service. No one seemed to have solved the music problem most Presbyterian services have concerning the use of modern music and/or traditional hymns. All choirs either faced the worshipers or sang from the back of the sanctuary, though choirs singing from the rear of the sanctuary seemed less effective. The organ playing, in general, was uninspiring. Worshipers did not participate actively in the singing even in the presence electric message boards containing the words of the songs to be sung. (In some cases these board seemed to hinder singing). The blue supplemental addition to our new (!) blue hymnal was often found and used with some effectiveness. Worship often started 5 minutes late and in some churches it was never clear when worship actually began! Early worship services tended to be less well attended than the 11:00 am services and there were always far more children present for the later service. Some bulletins were, in fact, booklets, but most were helpful and easy to use. Only one church had a Sunday night service. It was quite interesting, though very new.

Administrative structure was interesting, too. We found most churches were moving from (or working around) the traditional Presbyterian administrative structure. Indeed, some were pretty much ignoring it! The focus of administration tended toward doing ministry through active committees, with an effort being made to have committee members placed where they wanted (or felt called) to be. Several were working hard to develop Elders and Deacons as not just decision makers, but also as ministry doers and spiritual leaders. All had far fewer official officers than at RPC. It was amazing (and helpful) to see how different pastors had different leadership styles -- night and day differences! Many were far more confrontive and directive than others. The minister of one church, in particular, was quite intentional in efforts to organize meetings efficiently, so meeting time could be put into the spiritual development of officers and time could be spent on discover of vision for ministry.

All churches visited were multi-staff. Most had at least two full-time ministers: either an associate pastor or educator. Many had more ministry staff. Most had more than one full-time support staff, with two secretaries being common. One church used a full-time seminary student with sometimes great success and sometimes less success. Pastors were busy, but not overwhelmed. Most seemed competent and faithful. All churches had more staff than RPC.

Fellowship was a challenge. Nothing being done as fellowship events seemed to be working really well. Folk just don't attend. [Note: Is it that church members (and potential members) are having their fellowship needs met by the surrounding culture and are looking to the church more for spiritual help and service ministry, than for pot-lucks and hayrides?] Several churches were solving the fellowship issue, with the fellowship found in the doing of ministry together. Adult mission trips, projects and ministry activities seemed to be drawing numbers and people together in communion. Several churches divided their membership up into districts and had trained officers/leaders provide spiritual and pastoral care for each district.

What We Learned:

1. A warm welcome to those new to a church is absolutely essential. Hello from a greeter or during the passing of the peace is not enough. New folk need to be noticed, asked about, informed and listened to. Cold spots in the church need to be discovered and warmed up!

2. The good spirit of the worship service is of far more import than are the details of the worship service. Even churches trying new approaches to worship that were uncomfortable, could still have a good spirit to their worship. No one mentioned any discontent or problems as the result of two worship services.

3. The large narthex in most churches was well used and helped with community and welcome. One common entry way to worship (from parking lot and Sunday School Class areas) also helped with welcoming and creation of community. Churches with large open chancel areas with movable furnishings found more worship options available to them. Cleanliness and attention to appearance of building were noticeable, at once, and add to a positive first impression. Basements and bathrooms can be kept clean and attractive.

4. All Churches had more paid staff, far fewer officers than RPC and are administrated quite efficiently. Committees staffed by people who feel called to do their ministry are productive. Simply filling positions with people, less so. Efficient administration takes time, but dedicated leadership that feels called to serve and is well trained does enhance ministry.

5. The doing of ministry is exciting and enriching. As we heard of special ministry projects done by the churches that were visited, we found not just good spirit, but communion and excitement, as well. Indeed, this excitement was contagious.

6. Outreach to potential new members is challenging. Most all churches visited felt good about their worship/ministry and felt others outside of their churches would benefit from it. But no one really had effective ideas about how to get the unchurched into their buildings. One church did develop a drama ministry in concert with a local high school and also found that obvious building expansion did attract visitors who joined. Another was conducting some business/study in public places, but getting the surrounding community in the door was/is difficult.

7. Sunday School matters: adult classes, as well as classes for youth. Oftentimes, classes of special interests to all of the church (even those who were not Sunday School attenders) were led by clergy or by gifted teachers brought in from beyond the church. Refreshments available (coffee/donuts) created fellowship and community. The church is unified and ministry is enhanced when Sunday School, at times, is tied together with a ministry theme all are studying; and that theme also is tied to worship.

8. Signs are helpful: both the sign out front and the signs/bulletin boards inside. Indeed, inside signs (directions to where...) and bulletin boards that effectively described ministry or present the church mission statement, helped inform and describe.

9. Being theologically inclusive is difficult. Most all churches visited seemed not to be theologically inclusive: they were either theologically conservative or liberal. The rather unique combination at RPC of those theologically conservative and those theologically liberal is, to say the least, challenging and interesting, even as it is stimulating and exciting.

10. Long term pastorates can be hard to follow. Both pastors of churches we visited who followed 30+ year pastorates expressed frustration and discomfort at having to follow a long term pastorates that just coasted to their close. Apathy and fear of change were strong in each church, and necessary and needed change was difficult.

11. RPC has a wonderful spirt. The 2010 steering committee members visiting the 8 different churches noticed time after time the contrast and walked away with an even stronger belief that much of what RPC provides is very good. The committee members enjoyed visiting other churches, but it always felt good to come home.

 

 

Part I.

Background

As the ministry year of 2005-2006 came to its close, so did the four year plan to study and implement principles of ministry using the model for the mid-sized church, as developed by Roy Oswald and Alice Mann of the Alban Institute. How to proceed into coming years was the immediate question that was raised at the All-Church Retreat held in May of 2006.

Working from sessions on evaluation of ministry and dreams for the future, the following goals for further study were developed:

Renovation – How is our current building restricting/limiting our ministry? What changes could be made? How can it be renovated to enhance our overall ministry?

Reinvigoration – We’ve been together (staff/membership) for quite a long time (18 years). How do we keep fresh? How do we keep from taking each other and our ministry for granted? How can we reinvigorate?

Restructure – We’ve done no significant study of our administrative structure since 1997. Since then how have we changed as a church, and as a result of the change, how does our administrative structure need to be updated? How can we restructure in a manner that will better enable our ministry?


Beginnings: Summer 2006

The background and goals of the Four Year Plan were shared with Church Officers over the summer months: Session at its June meeting, Deacons and Property Management at a joint meeting in July (to which Elders who missed the June meeting were encouraged to attend). These meetings were well attended. An overview letter concerning the plan was sent to the entire congregation and placed on display at our church Web site. A final informational congregational meeting was held on Sunday, September 17, 2006, (following a luncheon that followed worship) at which the plan was presented again and questions were answered. National Capital Presbytery was informed of the plan in that same month. Session made final approval of implementation of the plan at its October meeting.


Year One: Implementation 2007

Year One has been entirely devoted to research and study.. No sudden changes have taken place – after all, we are Presbyterian! Under guidance of Session, a Steering Committee for study was formed. Some members of this committee were selected by the congregation (8), some members were appointed by the Pastor and approved by Session (8). Working with the Pastor over the spring of 2007, this committee visited, met with leadership of and studied the ministry of 8 other mid-sized churches within National Capital Presbytery. The committee sought to discover, in particular, how these other churches are structured (as in how are they actually organized for the doing of their ministry), the committee toured their buildings (looking to find how they have renovated to help their ministry), and the committee looked at the actual ministry programs of the visited churches (to discover what is invigorating to them and potentially useful to us). Beyond the established study goals of the 2010 Plan, the committee also found itself gaining a greater understanding of the importance of welcoming and found itself reflecting upon the variety of worship styles experienced. The committee met weekly with the Pastor on Wednesday evenings following all visits to further share, reflect and discuss. These Wednesday meetings (following a light dinner) were open to all members of the church to attend. Attendance at these Wednesday night gatherings grew as the winter progressed. The initial formal presentation of the Steering Committee to the congregation took place at our All-Church Retreat held at nearby Camp Letts on May 19-20.

The above has involved a working Sabbatical for the Pastor (from mid-February to mid-May, a duration of three months). While Sabbatical leave is recommended every six years for Presbyterian pastors, this has not been a practice of RPC, so this matter was considered carefully before Session approval. The Rev. Marshall Dunn ably handled the preaching (10 Sundays) during the Sabbatical. Our trained Pastor Care Assistants covered routine pastoral need – with the Pastor available for emergencies or severe need. Costs have not been significant and $700+ of the $3000.00 in the 2007 Budget for the 2010 effort is still available.

Year Two of the plan will involve developing a clear plan of action for our restructuring, renovation and reinvigoration. The Steering Committee has decided to make no immediate changes in our ministry. Indeed, their only goal for the coming summer is to inform the congregation of all that has been discovered (Joint Board Meeting in June, publication of a summary of their impressions, specially called after worship gatherings, informational Congregational Meeting in September, etc.) and begin to organize for implementation in the fall. It is thought that the Steering Committee will then divide into three/four sub-committees (or at least will be invited to do so, some may wish to take a break at this point) that will work with the Pastor in planning. Others of the Church will be welcomed and encouraged to also participate in this sub-committee work. Session will receive regular reports. By May of 2008, we would hope to present a specific plan to be implemented in year three to the church at the Annual All-Church Retreat. Approval/adaptation of the specific plan by Session will follow.

Year Three will involve implementation of planning – which may carry over into year four.

Year Four will be set aside for evaluation and adaptation.

As is always the case, the above outline is not set in stone. As we have progressed through the plan, we have already made adaptations and we will surely improve on it further in the future. Plus our ongoing prayer is that our Lord will surprise us with divine (and not always necessarily deserved!) blessing along the way!