There’s a lot of talk about shrinking congregations.  The decline in attendance is most noticeable in the mainline Protestant church.  There is considerable debate about what factors contribute to decline.  The lack of clarity about it is concerning.  It’s creating fatigue among congregational leaders because they are in an untenable position.  Leaders cannot effectively lead change if they don’t understand the processes and factors driving the problem. 
 
Over several decades, well-intentioned coaches talked about the importance of contemporary worship, the size of the parking lot, the number of people in the choir, the colors of the interior of the building, removing denominational insignia, greeters in the parking lot, cushions on the pews, gift bags for visitors, a robust social media presence, and a branding plan.  A case can be made for the importance of any of these solutions.  But none of them get us closer to the heart of the matter.  
 
One motivation for writing this weekly blog is to provide an alternative way of thinking about the challenges congregational leaders face.  It is an alternative to the “what works for us” and “do these five things and have success” mentality that feeds much of the leadership training that is offered. 
 
It’s not all doom and gloom, though.  We can claim, with a degree of certainty, that the following list is essential for building congregations:  Critical mass, money, a compelling narrative, and a system for developing relationships.
 
 
Butts in the Pews
 
Critical mass is essential for long-term sustainability.  If you walk into a congregation that has a dozen people in worship, you might wonder, “what’s wrong with this congregation that there aren’t more people here?” As a consumer, you are more likely to purchase from an online company that has hundreds of positive reviews then from a company that has no reviews, even if they offer the best price.  Critical mass matters.  But we can’t stop there.  Even megachurches (with their stellar attendance records) are facing decline.  Clearly, other factors are in play.
 
 
Resources
 
Congregations with long-term sustainability have access to money.  Those who are able to raise capital are able to grow.  Money matters.  Other resources matter too, like having well-trained leaders and volunteers.  But let’s not forget that even if you have access to money, leaders, and volunteers you still need to use them wisely.  A community built along the ocean will have thirsty citizens if they don’t figure out how to purify the water and disburse it to the people.
 
 
Beliefs
 
A compelling narrative is one that resonates and connects with us.  A compelling narrative is relevant to our daily lives.  It speaks to us.  It motivates us to action.  It gives us meaning. 
 
I titled this section “beliefs” because the narrative and our beliefs eventually intersect at a point of understanding.  To believe in a narrative, one must understand it and be able to connect it to one’s life.  
 
I still have questions about narratives and whether the decline in the mainline Protestant church is related to the narrative.  Organizations that are growing do a good job of telling a compelling narrative.  But is the decline in congregations related to the narrative?  If so, how can congregations do a better job of telling a compelling narrative? 

 
Belonging Precedes Believing
 
I’ve written already about belonging vs. believing.  You can read my blog about it by clicking here.  Congregations that thrive have a highly structured and well-maintained relationship system that helps new people become connected, and supports an individual's effort to reach their goals.  Congregations flourish to the extent they connect people together in meaningful ways.  Belonging without believing is more important than requiring people to agree to a fixed set of creeds and doctrines before they can belong.  
 
 
Where Do We Go From Here?
 
I still have questions about these characteristics of vibrant congregations.  How can they be measured quantitatively and qualitatively?  What is the interplay between these characteristics (does one dominate or are they all equal)?  How many of these characteristics do you need to thrive (all of them, a mixture, or just one)?  Are there examples of vibrant congregations that have none of these characteristics or only one of them?  What characteristics are missing?
 
And what about the one thing I have yet to mention: leadership?  How in the world do we develop good leaders?  Dr. Murray Bowen described the importance of having a good family leader when dealing with challenging families.  More than ever, congregations need good leaders.  Bowen observed that good leaders are working on differentiation of self. 
 
Many factors make up the concept of differentiation of self.  One of them is the ability to make good use of new and relevant information.  Leaders working on differentiation of self are open to new ideas and new ways of thinking.  They are open to incorporating these new ideas into their way of thinking when appropriate.  They evaluate the way they think but are unwilling to give up their thinking when faced with the immature or irresponsible thinking of others. 
 
Leaders are flexible.  Instead of buckling down to achieve some sort of short-term gain, they step up and out to embrace a new challenge.  Leaders understand that flexibility is the key to long-term sustainability. 
 
Differentiation of self is about leaning into the complexity of these issues and their connection to a congregation.  It’s about curiosity, discovery, reflective thinking, creativity, and risk-taking.  Without these things, congregations become reactive to their changing circumstances and face an avoidable death.  Leaders who are working on differentiation of self places themselves in a better position to lead their congregation into the future.  Critical mass, money, a compelling narrative, and a system for developing relationships may be essential, but differentiation of self is key.

My mood shifted. I had been feeling stressed, worried, and my thinking was cloudy. And then it all shifted. I became relaxed, happy, and clearer. I sat down and retraced my steps, specifically, my interactions. When did my mood shift? It was a compliment. Someone said something positive about my behavior. It was an emotional response to a relationship. I decided to dedicate this blog to another mood shifter: blame.

To blame is human. We all do it. But why? Blame serves a purpose. It calms down a relationship system that is tense and anxious. Pretend your congregation has spent weeks planning an event. The day of the event arrives, and nothing goes according to plan. Attendance is low, and the people who manage to show up are disappointed. In this case, it’s not unusual for someone to be blamed for everyone’s disappointment.

Inevitably, someone will take responsibility, not for the event, but for the feelings of disappointment in others. They will either blame themselves or blame others. When the person taking responsibility for the outward display of feelings of disappointment by others manages to get everyone to agree on whom to blame, the congregation will calm down. The extent to which this happens is an indicator of the level of maturity of the leaders of the congregation. The more blaming there is, the less mature the leaders.

Politicians are certified blamers. The public may dislike politicians who blame others. We may think it’s manipulative or callous. But politicians are humans. They react to the tension and anxiety of their constituents. They are just as tempted as the rest of us to calm down their people (their base) by blaming someone else.

Clergy are prone to blame. If a congregation is uptight, stressed, anxious, and tense clergy may find someone to blame. In congregations with a large staff, it’s not unusual for one staff person to be blamed for the disappointment or upsetness of the congregation. Someone on staff (often the pastor, but not always) will feel responsible for the negative feelings of the congregation and seek out someone to blame. We don’t like to admit it but (and for some people it is difficult to observe) we simply feel better when we blame others. It’s the only reason we do it.

As I mentioned earlier, some leaders blame themselves. Clergy overfunctiong when they blame themselves for problems in the congregation by taking too much credit for the success and failures of the congregation. When clergy overfunction, the relationship system calms down. Judicatory leaders who work closely with clergy are aware that clergy experience burnout and often do a poor job of self-care. Missing from this awareness is an understanding and appreciation of the emotional process in the relationship system. You can see it at work when clergy self-blame. When clergy blame themselves for problems in the system, they put pressure on their body to perform. It may sound counterintuitive, but clergy perform better when they stop overfunctioning.

The desire to blame diminishes as leaders work on developing a systems view of relationships and an awareness of the emotional process. A good coach can help with this. Consider the following questions:

• What does a more responsible leadership position look like?
• How clear are you about your responsibilities? What are you willing to do for others and self? What are you not willing to do for others or self?
• What challenges are others facing in the relationship system?
• How will you redirect future conversations away from blaming someone toward articulating a systems perspective? How can you be more responsible for the way you engage other people?
• How does blame (blaming others or blaming self) work in your family of origin? Where do you see it light up? What insights are useful for thinking about blame in the congregation?