By Ken Howard
Founder and President

In our early days of consulting with congregations and dioceses on issues of congregational vitality and sustainability, I had the opportunity to consult with two imperiled congregations: an inner-city congregation and an exurban congregation, represented in the maps above on the left and right, respectively. In both cases, our work was pro bono. In both cases, we came in at the request of their judicatory leader. For obvious reasons, I will not be identifying the congregations, their judicatories, or their leaders.

Except for location – different cities in different urbanization contexts – both congregations were experiencing low vitality and sustainability in virtually the same conditions:

• Depleted membership: under 50 and falling.
• Decreasing attendance: under 25 and falling.
• Aging out: Few if any children (mostly aging Boomers).
• Unable to afford clergy, except for Sunday worship.
• Inadequate and undependable revenue (the majority from rental income).
• They were using their rapidly decreasing endowment to pay most of their operating expenses.
• A huge spike in giving per household (a last-ditch attempt to stave off the seeming inevitability of closure).

Discussions with imperiled congregations are always fraught with emotion: denial, fear, anger, sorrow, guilt, resentment, and more. This is likely why most congregations and judicatory leaders avoid talking about it (despite seeing the proverbial “writing on the wall”) until it’s too late to turn things around.

Even when everyone agrees that their congregation is in danger of dying, there is a lot of “crap” to cut through. Likely, this is because most have seen this coming for years or even decades, long enough to come up with “great” (often blame-ridden) reasons about why the judicatory should invest lots of resources to keep them afloat, most of which begin, “If only the judicatory would [insert ‘Hail Mary’ solution here].”

One of the great advantages of doing data-grounded tools like the MissionMaps demographic/analytic platform, the Neighborhood Insights Report, and the Congregational Vitality Assessment is that graphically-depicted, interactive data can cut through the emotional clutter and rapidly facilitate transparent discussions about the vitality and sustainability of the congregation, and mutual discernment and planning around what, if any, strategies might revitalize the congregation.

In the case of the urban congregation (above right), we helped them see that while their vitality was low in almost all areas of congregational life, the neighborhoods they served were rich with missional opportunity (driven largely by increasing diversity and turnover in their neighborhoods), sufficient to sustain a vital congregation if they could engage the opportunities effectively. The realization that what they were currently doing to engage their neighborhoods wasn’t working led them to do a deep dive into the population groups in those neighborhoods, through which they determined that their membership was of a different generation (Boomers) than those living in their urban neighborhoods (Millennials). They also realized that most of their members lived in the outer suburbs, making it challenging for them to connect with the church’s inner-city neighbors. As one member put it, “We thought we were doing FOR our neighbors, but were really doing TO our neighbors, and needed to learn to work WITH our neighbors.”

Armed with all of these realizations, they decided to invest heavily in their time and in their remaining endowment in a 3- to 5-year strategy designed to better engage the opportunities and challenges of their neighborhoods. They spent two-thirds of their endowment to call a young, energetic pastor and pay what was necessary so that they could live near the church, holding back just enough to affect an orderly closure if their strategy didn’t work. That congregation has not only survived, but is thriving.

In the case of the suburban congregation (above right), we helped them see that their low-vitality congregation was in an area where missional opportunity was receding and could no longer sustain a typical congregation. As they examined underlying demographic trends, they found that population, diversity, and median income were decreasing, while poverty, unemployment, and median age were increasing. And they saw on the map that when the state built the new highway through their area, it went around their community, with the closest exit nearly a 15-min drive from the congregation.

Realizing that it was “not our fault” – that they could do everything right, and the congregation in its current form could not survive – led to a collective sigh of relief. It also led them to decide that, instead of going out with a whimper over the course of a decade, they would go out boldly while they still had sufficient resources to make a lasting impact. They closed within the year, sold the building, gave away their liturgical goods and furniture to congregations who could use them well, and bequeathed the remainder of their endowment and other accounts to the judicatory to use to support missional endeavors, including outreach ministry to their declining neighborhood.

This was a tale of two faith communities, both of which made faithful and courageous decisions. One lived faithfully and courageously. The other died faithfully and courageously. They risked it all to further God’s work in the world around them.

If you’d like to help your congregation explore ways to more effectively engage the neighborhoods it serves, contact us at info@faithx.net or learn more about what we offer here.