If the statisticians
are right and the mainline tradition writ large will not be a significant force
in America in about a decade, mainly because many congregations will shrink and
close, we need to rethink Holy Closure, if for no other reason than there will
be a whole lot of them. Luckily, one of the very forces hobbling the church, decentralization,
may also assist in setting things right. Now, I know, no shock, one of the last
guys defending
decentralization in the ELCA, thinks it could be helpful.
But hear
me out. A danger in the coming years is that the Synod will be spending all of
their time and effort shepherding congregational closures, instead of equipping
the remaining congregation for ministry. A second danger is that a large
portion of the proceeds from closures will go straight to the Synod to fund
Synodical ministries, which will be fixated on closing churches. These two
dynamics pressed together could create a bad feedback loop, where a Synod becomes
invested in doing the work of church closure, and church closure in turn funds
that work.
So, what’s
the problem with that, you may ask. After all, those who do the work ought to
receive the fruits of that work. Yes, and. And millions of dollars
leaving local communities for a centralized office, is alienating, especially
if that centralized office is so caught up in closures that they have no
bandwidth for other ministry and mission. I know there is an implication that folks
from closing congregations will join a nearby congregation and renew them, and
those who make that move certainly do. But the majority of the members of a
closing congregation disappear into the ether, and will only reappear as “anonymous”
Lutherans at the funeral home. The pastor of the receiving congregation will go
from doing 6-10 funerals a year for people they know, to 10-12 funerals a year,
half of them for people they do not know. And again, the shibboleth is that if
a Pastor does one or two “anonymous” funerals really well they’ll gain a family…
that may have been true when families lived near each other, but rarely happens
these days.
What if
both the responsibility and fruits of closure were distributed differently?
What if, becoming a District Dean or Cluster Counselor came with more than a
vague “Other Duties as Assigned” type of mandate, but instead an understanding
that 10% of resources from closing a congregation would go to ministries in the
Cluster or District? This would do two things:
1. It might encourage Districts and Clusters to think more “missionally” about
who their Deans and Counselors are (I know in Clusters and Districts I’ve been
a part of, everyone touches their nose and says “not it” when picking the new
Dean or Counselor).
2. It might also spark little local fires until something catches—it might harness
the power of Decentralization in such a way that congregational closings will
cease to be a sign of death, but instead a sign of resurrection and new life!
So, one
thing to think of, is encouraging every congregation to voluntarily pass a
continuing resolution that if they close, they want at least 10% of their
assets to go to the Synod and 10% of their assets to go to either their Cluster
or District. Give 10% to support the broader vision that the Synod has laid out,
the strategic big picture thinking that takes into account demographic shifts
and programs that benefit the whole Synod. But also, give 10% to minister to
those who remain, to encourage tactical victories that might otherwise become
missed opportunities, to fund ground up innovation and empower clusters and
districts.