Communications and the Church
Bill T-B | November 4, 2008I recently had a great conversation with an older member of a fast-shrinking congregation. She was looking for resources on how to improve communications within her congregation and she was finding precious few resources … could I help? Sure, I could help. But before we went further, I asked her to tell me what she meant by “improving communications” and her response was almost exactly what I expected.
The Intra-Church Communications’ Axiom: Whenever someone in the church claims the church needs to improve its communications, it’s not about communications. It’s about control.
Once upon a time, when the church peacefully coexisted with culture (Christendom), having seventy member boards and lots and lots of committees didn’t hurt anything. Ministry decisions could move much slower and because there was typically a strong denominational ethos in the congregation, there was at least some sense of shared values. Trusting leadership was seldom an issue. First, the leaders rarely made decisions that were contrary to the congregation’s expectations - there was no need to because “everyone” was on the same page. Second, because membership on the boards and committees were so pervasive that anyone who was anyone, and a lot of not-so-much anyones, served together, there were few surprising decisions that needed to be made. The church as an organization existed to a large extent to preserve a Christian culture that existed both within and outside the walls of the church.
That was once upon a time. We no longer live in the fairy tale land where the culture naturally knows the metastories of faith and church members naturally know and share the congregational ethos. The church as an organization largely chose to try and preserve a Christian culture … and when the culture outside the church moved on, the focus subtly shifted to maintaining that culture within the church. The focus for many who could remember the shared culture of the past was to try and fiercely hold on to the realities of back then.
The world moved on. The focus of the church either has to change from being caretakers of a past culture or it has to move on to serious evangelism and discipleship that’s at least as dedicated to behavioral change as it is in intellectual change. As you’re no doubt aware, most churches in North America are still struggling over this change of focii and it’s creating a lot of distrust in the leadership. Suddenly ministry and tactical decisions have to be made with lightning speed in order to reach the folks who are immersed in culture-change-on-steroids. Suddenly church leaders are making decisions that are counter to the ethos of old and the folks who “remember when” don’t understand. Some are never going to understand because the culture is so contrary to their worldview that “getting it” may well be beyond them. Others won’t understand because they don’t like the changes and they’re not going to like the changes and they really don’t care about understanding - they just want to recapture what they once had.
Today, church boards by and large are smaller, much smaller, than what they used to be. Churches today with literally thousands of members are regularly served by boards of five or seven. They’re making critical decisions that are steering the church on a course of ministry that isn’t always popular with a vocal and sometimes powerful minority. And these folks want to know “why” the changes are being made. They pine for a culture where they were included in virtually every decision … and every decision was largely in keeping with their personal understanding of ministry. So this group is asking for communication’s tools. But contrary to what it seems, the reason the vocal few demand communication’s tools is to find a way to reassert the control they are losing or have lost. They miss the “good old days” and they want them back.
They’re not coming back. Those church leaders who spend their time trying to appease the demand for improved intra-church communications will soon discover that there’s no such thing as improved communications. The communications many want is for the church leadership to listen to them, not so much to hear the wheres and whyfores about the decisions being made. Most churches are pretty good about letting their congregants know that there are changes coming, what they are, and why they’re coming. What they don’t do well, according to the vocal few, is listen to the voice of the “church,” i.e., them. But going back or slowing down isn’t going to help the church in the short run or the long run.
So, church leaders, when you hear the demands to improve church communications, remember that it’s not what it seems. You’ll never be able to appease the demands and be faithful to evangelism and discipleship to the unreached in your community. You can’t go forward by going backwards.








I needed this for my exit interview at my church
Anne | November 5, 2008I needed this for my exit interview at my church tomorrow - thanks for being so timely.
So, how does one confront the "Fog Horns" that
Catherine Goser | November 15, 2008So, how does one confront the “Fog Horns” that create so much conflict in the transforming church as discussed in the 3rd Session of the NE Area Assembly? And the words to use? While I enjoyed reading several of your articles, I did not readily find anything on the subject.
All this is predicated on the need to confront a
Bill T-B | November 19, 2008All this is predicated on the need to confront a congregational controller.
Step one: Develop congregational expected behaviors. If you don’t do this, you cannot effectively move on to step two. DO NOT SKIP THIS STEP.
Step two: Rely on Matthew 18:15-17 when someone misbehaves.
- After an incident, the pastor or board chair visits the controller one-on-one and says, “As a congregation, we’ve agreed that we will not treat one another like this. Your behavior wasn’t in keeping with our expected behaviors. This cannot continue.” If an apology and repentance is offered, the issue is done (until the next time, if there ever is a next time). If, on the other hand, the controller refuses to repent and/or makes excuses or turns the blame on the board/pastor/committee/church etc., conflict resolution goes to the next level
- The pastor or board chair reports to the executive committee (if the board is over 12 people) or to the board the response. Then two people, the original visitor and one other (typically an elder or a senior member of the board/executive committee) goes to the controller and says, essentially, the same thing as in the first visit, except this time the controller is told that the behavior will not be tolerated and that it must cease. If the controller repents, the issue is done. If not, the conflict resolution goes to the final level.
- The two visitors next report to the board (the whole group this time) about the visits. The board should discuss the issue and the behavior. If the board agrees that the behavior was and is inconsistent with the congregation’s expected behavior covenant, then they have no choice but to invite the controller to appear before them. If the controller comes (highly unlikely in my experience), the board then informs the controller that the controller’s behavior is unacceptable and if the behavior does not immediately cease, then the board has no choice but to remove the controller from all leadership positions and to instruct the controller to not return to the church until they have decided to behave otherwise … and if they so decide, the controller must seek reconciliation beginning with the pastor and then the board. In other words, show the controller the door and tell them to not come back until they’ve had a change of heart.
Is this easy? No. I’ve had to do it four times during my ministry career. It’s painful and hurtful and unpleasant. But in every case … and I mean every case … when a controller is removed, there is a collective sigh of relief by the congregation. Attendance goes up (after the supporters of the controller leave in protest), giving goes up, and the spirit of the church improves significantly. Oh, and one other side benefit. Other would-be controllers notice … and when they act out (and they will), you’ll seldom have to get past the one-on-one confrontation. They know the congregation means business - and that they’re not afraid to be faithful to Jesus and his conflict instructions.