Chapter Six
The Pastoral/Relational size and style of church, with 50 to 150 AWA, is for the Disciples of Christ our sweet spot for congregations. That's probably been historically 85% of our total, maybe more like 75% in recent years as congregations have slipped below 50 a Sunday.
Full disclosure: that's what I'm used to. I grew up in and in six congregations have known pretty much only that niche. I didn't and haven't attended a larger church, except for a seven year period where I was out of parish pulpit ministry, but did a great deal of supply preaching -- when I wasn't otherwise engaged, I was part of a United Methodist Church that was up around 300 AWA, technically moving into the Program/Managerial category, but I could feel the many forces in the congregation tugging everything back down to a more pastor-centered, relational emphasis church . . . and it has dropped back down a couple of times closer to 250 since. The "In-Between Church" struggle is not a battle that's won and put behind everyone at many churches.
So even my one "outside the box" experience has been one that pointed strongly back at the PastoralRelational model, and size. Which makes me ask the perfectly dispassionate question: am I the right pastor to take a church up past 150 to 200 or beyond? Saying I might not be isn't saying I'm a bad minister, it's just a statement of potential fact. I'm good at one thing, and likely not good at another. An auto mechanic isn't automatically good at diesel engine work; they might do scary fast oil changes and tire rotations, but not be able to do skilled maintenance on a diesel. We all have limitations, and it's useful to know them.
This is also an institutional problem. I've written elsewhere at length about how the Ohio Disciples have squandered their birthright for a mess of pottage, and I'm not revisiting that, but I have to touch on a relevant part of our problem regionally to consider our situation and prospects congregationally.
When I said above that 50-150 is our sweet spot, I meant exactly that: those size congregations are what we know best, and that sort of church culture is, intentionally or not, what we prioritize and model and affirm most easily. It's our majority culture.
But there's an aspect of that culture that is slowly strangling us. Simply put, for a hundred years a congregation that could put at least an average of 50 in the seats each Sunday could afford a minister. A compensated, professional member of the clergy. Over the last fifty years, that viability number for a full-time ordained minister (not, I would argue, viability as a congregation per se) has crept up from 50 to 100. This isn't because clergy have been getting dramatically better paid, it's because of the cost of basic benefits, primarily health care insurance, have pushed the total cost of hiring a full-time employee up to where if you don't have 70, 75, 80 or more a Sunday, you have to either find a way to go to part-time ministry, or find a minister whose compensation needs are more flexible. As I always want to say, I know most part-time ministers work more hours than 20 or 25 a week quite often; I'm saying that many so-called full-time positions are no longer full-time in the older sense of "jobs you'd move your family across the country for." So commissioned and bivocational ministers become more common, and clergy who are already retired from a secular job and go into ministry with different compensation needs become very much in demand.
And the current situation in many areas is that you need to be closer to 150 than to 100 to actually have a complete compensation package for a full-time ordained minister with all standard health and pension benefits.
Across the Untied States and Canada, we have 56 out of just over 2,000 congregations at 225 and larger. That's less than 3% of the total. I don't know what the 150 number and larger is for us, but I'd estimate it would still be well below 10%.
So here's my problem, or at least one of them, as a responsible member of the clergy and a caring and concerned pastor of the congregation to which I am called. I have always believed that a big part of my ministry in every church I've served, starting with my seminary church where I was taught this by my senior pastor and mentor, was to start thinking about the end. To always be aware from my first months and years of that last Sunday, and what happens after. That I have a responsibility both to the ministers of the Gospel who will follow me in this pulpit, and to this congregation after I leave it. And in general, I now realize looking back, I have had a roughly 30 year window in my thinking, asking myself "how will this example or decision or request influence this church thirty years down the line?" In 1990 that meant I would be considering next year, 2020; in 2020 it means I should be thinking as I write and share this how my words and proposals will affect 2050.
I'm not sure 30 years is enough; these last few decades in Ohio have led me into work along side many Native American Indian groups, and they have said to me again and again "to the seventh generation." That's looking at impacts 150 years ahead, which I'm still not sure I'm up to, but I keep the concept in mind. For a church: the worship style, our building, the outreach ministries, the internal structure of governance, the management of funds -- I'm thinking at least out to 2070 is the framework I need to be mindful of.
Keep in mind, too: I was here in 1990, albeit as the associate pastor. But I was thinking this way, and about the unimaginable cosmic date of 2020, and I can assure you I saw very little coming that's come to pass for churches in general and Newark in particular. But I also believe that you have to look ahead, and be open to the Lord's leadings, in order to hear anything at all. Not much we planned back then came to pass as we expected, but if there were failures of leadership then it was lack of vision and foresight, not trying too hard and dreaming too big. Purchasing 130 Rugg Avenue was a foresighted move in 1990; I believe a few years later the step to obtain 138 Rugg was a good decision as well. Opening up off-street parking while losing some rental income across the street along Mount Vernon Road may have been one of the most important decisions we made in those years, but it didn't seem so at the time.
But what I do not see clearly in the immediate future for our church is how we relate to ministry staffing. Because whether I'm still senior pastor two more years or twelve, I don't see us as likely being in a position to call a full-time ordained minister to preach and teach for us. As I say as gently as I can, and perhaps should not so gently (but I don't want to be misinterpreted), your senior pastor currently does not receive a full-time compensation package. To add health care to my contract would, as things currently stand, either mean we cut loose the associate position or raise what's effectively another 10% on our general fund budget. And if anyone thinks that we could just cut $20,000 off the salary and get a newer, younger minister for lower pay, and shift that over to health insurance.
This isn't because we're in bad shape, as I've noted previously, but we're in fact pretty typical. This is the dilemma for most Disciples churches, because as I've said, our sweet spot is 50-150 AWA, and that's no longer big enough to cover a full-time package of salary and benefits. Our church culture and assumptions and expectations are built around having a staff minister who is full-time, and until recently a full-time secretary and custodian. Our expectations around building maintenance and office services and pastoral care are full-time . . . but in church after church, full-time has become part-time has become contracted services or volunteers helping out.
One obvious solution is: grow over 150. Well, as we've already noted, this is not the right reason to want to grow. If you're trying to grow just to keep up with the pastor's paycheck, it's just not gonna work, okay? Growth is not the right answer to that question.
What we might need to do is . . . ask a different question. Or a pair of questions, actually. Do we have to have a full-time ordained minister in 2030, say? Which is a question that lives in tension with a similar question: does this particular congregation have to be bigger than 200 a Sunday? I'm not asking the idealistic question of "shouldn't we have a different goal as a Christian church than just getting bigger?" but the actual question "in any case, should Newark Central become a bigger church?" Is it our calling to become one of those Program/Administrative size congregations, or is there a place for us as a faithful place of Christian fellowship and service under 200 a Sunday?
Newark Central average worship attendance
as reported 1990 - 2018
1990 – 237
1991 – 251
1992 – 249
1993 – 243
1994 – 225
1995 – 227
1996 – 215
1997 – 190
1998 – 185 [Mark Richardson’s last year]
1999 – 193
2000 – 181 [Bob Callender]
2001 – 157
2002 – 132
2003 – NR
2004 – 111
2005 – NR
2006 – NR
2007 – 126 [Rick Rintamaa]
2008 – 165
2009 – 146
2010 – 138
2011 – 156
2012 – 161 [Jeff Gill]
2013 – 162
2014 – 165
2015 – 158
2016 – 156
2017 – 152
2018 – 153
2019 – 152 [projected at 8 mos.]
+ + +
Full disclosure: that's what I'm used to. I grew up in and in six congregations have known pretty much only that niche. I didn't and haven't attended a larger church, except for a seven year period where I was out of parish pulpit ministry, but did a great deal of supply preaching -- when I wasn't otherwise engaged, I was part of a United Methodist Church that was up around 300 AWA, technically moving into the Program/Managerial category, but I could feel the many forces in the congregation tugging everything back down to a more pastor-centered, relational emphasis church . . . and it has dropped back down a couple of times closer to 250 since. The "In-Between Church" struggle is not a battle that's won and put behind everyone at many churches.
So even my one "outside the box" experience has been one that pointed strongly back at the PastoralRelational model, and size. Which makes me ask the perfectly dispassionate question: am I the right pastor to take a church up past 150 to 200 or beyond? Saying I might not be isn't saying I'm a bad minister, it's just a statement of potential fact. I'm good at one thing, and likely not good at another. An auto mechanic isn't automatically good at diesel engine work; they might do scary fast oil changes and tire rotations, but not be able to do skilled maintenance on a diesel. We all have limitations, and it's useful to know them.
This is also an institutional problem. I've written elsewhere at length about how the Ohio Disciples have squandered their birthright for a mess of pottage, and I'm not revisiting that, but I have to touch on a relevant part of our problem regionally to consider our situation and prospects congregationally.
When I said above that 50-150 is our sweet spot, I meant exactly that: those size congregations are what we know best, and that sort of church culture is, intentionally or not, what we prioritize and model and affirm most easily. It's our majority culture.
But there's an aspect of that culture that is slowly strangling us. Simply put, for a hundred years a congregation that could put at least an average of 50 in the seats each Sunday could afford a minister. A compensated, professional member of the clergy. Over the last fifty years, that viability number for a full-time ordained minister (not, I would argue, viability as a congregation per se) has crept up from 50 to 100. This isn't because clergy have been getting dramatically better paid, it's because of the cost of basic benefits, primarily health care insurance, have pushed the total cost of hiring a full-time employee up to where if you don't have 70, 75, 80 or more a Sunday, you have to either find a way to go to part-time ministry, or find a minister whose compensation needs are more flexible. As I always want to say, I know most part-time ministers work more hours than 20 or 25 a week quite often; I'm saying that many so-called full-time positions are no longer full-time in the older sense of "jobs you'd move your family across the country for." So commissioned and bivocational ministers become more common, and clergy who are already retired from a secular job and go into ministry with different compensation needs become very much in demand.
And the current situation in many areas is that you need to be closer to 150 than to 100 to actually have a complete compensation package for a full-time ordained minister with all standard health and pension benefits.
Across the Untied States and Canada, we have 56 out of just over 2,000 congregations at 225 and larger. That's less than 3% of the total. I don't know what the 150 number and larger is for us, but I'd estimate it would still be well below 10%.
So here's my problem, or at least one of them, as a responsible member of the clergy and a caring and concerned pastor of the congregation to which I am called. I have always believed that a big part of my ministry in every church I've served, starting with my seminary church where I was taught this by my senior pastor and mentor, was to start thinking about the end. To always be aware from my first months and years of that last Sunday, and what happens after. That I have a responsibility both to the ministers of the Gospel who will follow me in this pulpit, and to this congregation after I leave it. And in general, I now realize looking back, I have had a roughly 30 year window in my thinking, asking myself "how will this example or decision or request influence this church thirty years down the line?" In 1990 that meant I would be considering next year, 2020; in 2020 it means I should be thinking as I write and share this how my words and proposals will affect 2050.
I'm not sure 30 years is enough; these last few decades in Ohio have led me into work along side many Native American Indian groups, and they have said to me again and again "to the seventh generation." That's looking at impacts 150 years ahead, which I'm still not sure I'm up to, but I keep the concept in mind. For a church: the worship style, our building, the outreach ministries, the internal structure of governance, the management of funds -- I'm thinking at least out to 2070 is the framework I need to be mindful of.
Keep in mind, too: I was here in 1990, albeit as the associate pastor. But I was thinking this way, and about the unimaginable cosmic date of 2020, and I can assure you I saw very little coming that's come to pass for churches in general and Newark in particular. But I also believe that you have to look ahead, and be open to the Lord's leadings, in order to hear anything at all. Not much we planned back then came to pass as we expected, but if there were failures of leadership then it was lack of vision and foresight, not trying too hard and dreaming too big. Purchasing 130 Rugg Avenue was a foresighted move in 1990; I believe a few years later the step to obtain 138 Rugg was a good decision as well. Opening up off-street parking while losing some rental income across the street along Mount Vernon Road may have been one of the most important decisions we made in those years, but it didn't seem so at the time.
But what I do not see clearly in the immediate future for our church is how we relate to ministry staffing. Because whether I'm still senior pastor two more years or twelve, I don't see us as likely being in a position to call a full-time ordained minister to preach and teach for us. As I say as gently as I can, and perhaps should not so gently (but I don't want to be misinterpreted), your senior pastor currently does not receive a full-time compensation package. To add health care to my contract would, as things currently stand, either mean we cut loose the associate position or raise what's effectively another 10% on our general fund budget. And if anyone thinks that we could just cut $20,000 off the salary and get a newer, younger minister for lower pay, and shift that over to health insurance.
This isn't because we're in bad shape, as I've noted previously, but we're in fact pretty typical. This is the dilemma for most Disciples churches, because as I've said, our sweet spot is 50-150 AWA, and that's no longer big enough to cover a full-time package of salary and benefits. Our church culture and assumptions and expectations are built around having a staff minister who is full-time, and until recently a full-time secretary and custodian. Our expectations around building maintenance and office services and pastoral care are full-time . . . but in church after church, full-time has become part-time has become contracted services or volunteers helping out.
One obvious solution is: grow over 150. Well, as we've already noted, this is not the right reason to want to grow. If you're trying to grow just to keep up with the pastor's paycheck, it's just not gonna work, okay? Growth is not the right answer to that question.
What we might need to do is . . . ask a different question. Or a pair of questions, actually. Do we have to have a full-time ordained minister in 2030, say? Which is a question that lives in tension with a similar question: does this particular congregation have to be bigger than 200 a Sunday? I'm not asking the idealistic question of "shouldn't we have a different goal as a Christian church than just getting bigger?" but the actual question "in any case, should Newark Central become a bigger church?" Is it our calling to become one of those Program/Administrative size congregations, or is there a place for us as a faithful place of Christian fellowship and service under 200 a Sunday?
+ + +
Newark Central average worship attendance
as reported 1990 - 2018
1990 – 237
1991 – 251
1992 – 249
1993 – 243
1994 – 225
1995 – 227
1996 – 215
1997 – 190
1998 – 185 [Mark Richardson’s last year]
1999 – 193
2000 – 181 [Bob Callender]
2001 – 157
2002 – 132
2003 – NR
2004 – 111
2005 – NR
2006 – NR
2007 – 126 [Rick Rintamaa]
2008 – 165
2009 – 146
2010 – 138
2011 – 156
2012 – 161 [Jeff Gill]
2013 – 162
2014 – 165
2015 – 158
2016 – 156
2017 – 152
2018 – 153
2019 – 152 [projected at 8 mos.]
+ + +
Comments
Post a Comment