As I look at my friends list on facebook, I see how few people there are who currently attend Warm Springs that are on that list, and most of them already know much of the story. For everyone else who bothers reading these long notes, this is really something much closer to a prayer letter, since there is much prayer necessary in this situation.
As I look at that list of facebook friends today, I find it's pretty much the same. The few people who attend Warm Springs know the story (so it's not "new" information for anyone), and everyone else who decides to read these long posts should take it like a prayer letter.
Without going into unnecessary details, in the last week the Elder board has more or less been completely dissolved. At the root was a violation of trust and responsibility by the moderator, and the refusal to confess and repent when confronted. It can essentially be viewed as a protest resignation of the most of rest of the board, and the removal of the moderator from leadership.
I think that everything was done in an appropriate manner. I think the promise of openness and transparency by the new elders was kept (except for the one). And I believe that a significant breakthrough in the life of the church has happened. I consider it a victory for a church that is accustomed to dealing with things quietly, hoping that problems can be swept under the rug and disappear to finally step up and deal with truth out in the open.
Even though there is a part of me that is very glad to see this person out of leadership, I want to be sure not to gloat over his removal. As one of the founding members of the church, he has had a time of important influence and relevance in the history of the church. However, it has been apparent for at least a few years that his influence had become increasingly negative and divisive. I know that it was a hard thing to take action of this type against this person, knowing that it would lead to the public "defrocking" of a church patriarch. It's even harder knowing that there will be significant fallout (again) as a result of this action. Nevertheless, in light of unrepentant behavior it does become necessary to take such actions, and the higher up in leadership you are, the more people will see it. In this case, one could be no higher on the organizational chart, so it happened in a place where everyone will see.
So, what now?
(1) The elder board will need to be reconstituted.
(2) We will lose some long time members and subsequently some financial stability (as if we had a lot to begin with?)
(3) The church may finally be able to move forward.
As before, each point needs some expansion.
Going from six elders down to one is a big deal. It was stated that the church is reaching out to the region (Growing Healthy Churches) and I expect that the church leadership will be willing follow their advice this time.
I fully anticipate being asked to consider eldership again (but I won't be upset if I'm not asked). There's a lot to contemplate in this. The enthusiasm I had in November has certainly been muted over the last few months. I don't have the same relationship with the pastoral staff as I did back then (that is, the pastoral staff that I did have relationships with aren't at the church anymore). The overall dynamic seems very different, and I'm not sure how I would fit into it now. I also don't know anything about how many or who else they might try to call to fill the empty chairs. Are they going to try to force the number six again, or are they going to recognize that the governance documents serve the church, not the other way around? I'd much rather be a part of a three person elder board with a healthy leadership dynamic than a six person board where half of them don't have a clue what they're doing.
The primary question is this: What function would I serve as an elder that I could not serve as a non-elder? In other words, if I can do everything (in terms of how I participate in the church) as a non-elder, why should I be an elder?
Also, I'm not sure whether I want it. Of course, events are very close in time to right now, and with time I can get some clarity.
(2) I was speculating with a friend about this one. When someone of as much influence as this person had leaves the church, he is taking people with him (especially under these circumstances). And the people he's going to take with him are older people, who are more generally consistent givers. There will also be collateral damage to some who have simply had enough of the nonsense at that church. I'm a little less worried about that (from a financial perspective) because it's not as clear that those people would be the ones who are actively contributing to the church.
The church's finances aren't in great shape right now, and this will make things a little worse in the near future. Historical giving trends will not be a good indicator of what future giving will be, and there may be a need to investigate active giving to see how we should deal with things moving forward. Maybe we'll have to take pledges from the congregation for the next six months (up to the end of the fiscal year).
Actually, pledging the budget was an idea that was discussed in the last year. The first thing a business must do to make a budget is to figure out how much money it expects to have in the coming year. Why do churches make their budgets with numbers that they pull out of thin air? They sometimes even put in a "faith factor" and pretend as if it's a mark of their trust in God to put themselves in a rough spot so that God can bail them out! (Giving was X last year, but we want to add some more programs so we will expand the budget by 10%!) That seems wholly unwise to me. During times of this level of uncertainty, perhaps it's a good idea to try to at least bring *some* reality to the numbers?
(3) There are various levels of hope in the church right now. I'm more "relieved" than "hopeful" at the moment. But at least some practical steps can be taken now that obstructive leadership is not a problem. With our attendance numbers down (and bound to drop some more), we're probably going to move to one service. This has been on the docket for at least a couple months. I view this as a positive step in terms of building up unity within the church and turning the momentum from negative to positive. It will also bring some much needed relief to the Sunday morning volunteers, who will have their work load reduced.
Now that leadership has been stripped down to a (near) absolute minimum, and everything is coming to a halt, there is an opportunity for vision-casting. Something that has been lacking for a long time is a coherent big picture vision for the church to strive for. How do the various ministries in the church work together to bring about some sort of positive outcome? How would we form a cohesive package of discipleship, so that those who become Christians have a pathway to follow towards maturity? There's no central strategy and no direction. If everyone is pulling in different directions, the net progress will be close to zero.
I was asked tonight whether I wanted to help start a "singles and college group." First, those two demographics probably shouldn't go together. They aren't in the same place in life, and their needs and concerns are entirely different. Second, we don't have very many singles, and we don't have very many college students. Third, I don't know whether this is something that our church in particular should be investing in. I'm not saying that college students don't need a place to connect, but is our church really the best place for it to happen? Is our church well-equipped to deal with the needs of that population?
[I question the value of a "singles" ministry, but that's a completely different conversation. While I'm distracted, I want to add that the conversation eventually turned into a fun theological discussion about "faith." Is the call of a Christian to "just believe" when you start up a new ministry? Is it right for a Christian to "deal in reality" or is it more appropriate to "walk in faith"? Are we supposed to ignore or deny "evidence" because it stands contrary to "faith"?]
Organizationally, starting a "singles and college group" right now would be a silo ministry. It will stand off on its own, and not play any role in the larger church body. That's not how a small and struggling church is going to survive. It's far more important to devote this time to getting everyone focused on the same goal. And then we can start moving towards that goal together.
----
The next couple weeks should be very interesting.
