Blog | Page 36 of 37 | The FaithX Project

Dec 01 2015

7 Church Start-Up Myths

By Ken Howard

There are a lot of myths floating around about church start-up…or what some call church plants. What I want to do here is list them, bust them, replace them with facts, and then let you make up your own mind.

While I made an editorial decision not to clutter up the narrative with data and sources, please rest assured that all of the statements of fact in this series based on solid research from a variety of sources. I will provide the sources on request.

MYTH 1 – Church Start-Ups are too expensive. I’m not going to tell you that church plants are cheap. There are significant up-front costs, especially if your context makes it necessary to buy property and build a building. However, depending on the specific context, property and building may not be necessary, or may not need to be done from scratch. And even if they are necessary, there are ways to minimize the costs and share the financial burden, including multi-faith campuses, mixed-use development, community bond financing, and other strategies. Church plants are not expenditures, they are investments.

MYTH 2 – Church Start-Ups drain diocesan budgets of resources needed to help struggling parishes. Church Planters, when appearing at councils to for ask investment in land or a building, often hear a question that goes something like this, “How can we possibly spend what little capital funds we have left on new churches, when existing parishes are struggling to _______ [fix their roofs, pay their rectors, insert excuse here, etc.].” Not to be heartless, but the reality is usually the other way around. Struggling parishes are usually struggling because they aren’t paying attention to their changing contexts or are unable or unwilling to adapt to those changing conditions. Statistically speaking, diocesan resources spent on propping up struggling parishes are generally a case of good money after bad, enabling the struggling parish not to come to terms with its underlying problems. Statistically speaking, if you want to generate resources to aid struggling parishes, the best way to do it is to plant new churches, since if properly financed and built with room to grow, most start-up churches will start returning funds to the diocese within 5 to 7 years, in continually increasing amounts. Church Plants are not just investments, they are good investments.

MYTH 3 – Church Start-Ups are too risky: most Church Plants fail. Actually, about 60% of church startups succeed, which is a better ratio than business startups. This number gets better when you factor out Church Plants that were underfunded, under-trained, or otherwise under-supported by the their dioceses. And if diocese are careful to buy multi-use property right, and construct buildings that can be repurposed, even if the Church Plant itself doesn’t succeed, the diocese will likely be able to sell them at a profit. It’s definitely a risk for the church planter and the congregation (both emotional and potentially financial), but not a significant financial risk for the diocese.

MYTH 4 – Church Start-Ups harm the existing churches around them. Actually, the reverse is true. And I don’t mean that existing churches harm church plants (though they have been known to try occasionally). No. What actually happens when you plant a new church is that it helps the existing churches grow. Here’s how it works: The new church draws people’s attention, people check out new church, many of them like it and stay, and others find it isn’t quite right for them. Maybe they want a higher church, a lower church, a larger church (one they can get lost in). Or maybe they don’t want to set up chairs every week. Whatever the reason, they keep looking, and we often send them to another Episcopal church in the area. In the end, the result for the existing churches is net positive: they gain more than they lose – and the more they are collaborating with the Church Plant, the more they tend to gain.

MYTH 5 – Too many half-empty church buildings already – Church Start-Ups will only exacerbate the problem. It’s hard to know where to begin with this myth. It would make more sense if the reason so many churches were half-empty was because the ratio of churches to people was too high. But with few exceptions, that is not the case. A church glut has never been our problem. All too often, the problem of church membership decline is a lack of attention to a changing neighborhood context or a lack of willingness to adapt to what they learn. Church plants are simply not a contributor to this problem.

MYTH 6 – Church Planting isn’t really an Episcopal “thing.” Wrong. In most dioceses, you don’t have to look that many generations back to find a time when church planting was in high gear, with mother churches planting daughter churches all around them. Church Planting definitely a part of our DNA – we just haven’t expressed very much it for a generation or so. Many congregations in my diocese have birthed as much as four daughter congregations (or are one of those daughter congregations), many as late as the 1950s and 60s, and even a few in the early 70s. My own congregation, a diocesan plant, is the first successful church plant in the diocese in 4 decades.

MYTH 6 – Church Start-Ups are not truly Episcopal – they leave at the first theological disagreement. There is a bit of truth to this. Some Church plants have left TEC over theological agreements. Most of those that left were founded during the time when TEC, jealous of the success of Church plants in conservative, evangelical denominations, tried to replicate them hook, line, and sinker, without doing the hard work of conceptualizing them out of our own polity and theology. Truth is, when dioceses take the time to discern what church planting and evangelism might look like in an Anglican/Episcopal context, they tend to be very schism resistant and authentically Anglican.

MYTH 7 – Church Start-Ups tend to be suburban, big, rich, and white. There is more than a little reverse prejudice in this myth. A large number of church plants do tend to be suburban, but that’s because the most population growth, the least number of churches, and the most unchurched people are. My own congregation faced this prejudice frequently in our diocese, especially when we requested any financial investment. When our diocesan council was considering our building plans, the leader of an inner city traditional African-American congregation, voted against our proposal, literally saying, “We don’t nFeed more new churches out in the suburbs: they’ll only end up being big, rich, and white.” Our congregation was not huge, not rich, and more diverse than many of the parishes surrounding us. And this is typical of must Episcopal Church Plants.

I am indebted to the these friends and colleagues for the following blog posts (including research) on this subject:

Adam Trambley, in his blog, The Black Giraffe, explains the Church Planting Resolution and shares the vision behind the resolves.
Susan Brown Snook whose post Treasure to Share: Why Plant New Churches on her blog, A Good and Joyful Thing, makes an strong case for the work of church planting based on the research for her book.
Frank Logue, in his blog, The Loose Canon, busts five common myth many Episcopalians hold about church planting and offers five truths he has found in 18 years of working with Episcopal church starts: Church Planting Myths Dispelled

Oct 15 2015

Are You Leading a Zombie Congregation? (A Quiz)

by Ken Howard

Step 1: Take this ten-item quiz to discover whether your faith community is undead

In case you haven’t noticed, Zombies are becoming more popular these days. Gone are the old-time Zombie movies with their slack-jawed, shuffling Zombies. Nowadays the Undead are appearing in Zombie action movies, Zombie romantic comedies, Zombie Bollywood flicks, even Zombie detective series on T.V.

Zombies have even made their way into business literature. Companies and non-profit organizations that are operating but not growing have come to be called Zombies, because they are in a state of limbo – not dead, yet not exactly alive either – and because they maintain their undead existence by draining resources away from healthy organizations.

So what about Zombie faith communities? Could there be congregations in which the individual members were alive, but the congregation as a whole was undead, having lost both the desire and the capacity to grow? It’s not just possible but true. By the standard just articulated, a significant portion of our faith communities (perhaps even a plurality) could be classified as Zombies. In fact, faith communities may be more at risk of becoming Zombies than other kinds of organizations, because they can blind themselves to their condition by convincing themselves that their lack of change and adaptation to new contexts is due to the strength of their traditions. And they can often maintain their undead existence for decades by consuming their own endowments and/or denominational resources that might otherwise go to healthier congregations.

Are you leading a Zombie faith community? Take this ten-question quiz and find out…
[Click here to download a PDF copy of the quiz]

Your typical congregant thinks the purpose of your faith community is to minister to the congregation.
1. True. The typical member of our congregation thinks the purpose of the faith community is to minister to them.
2. Uncertain. I have no idea how the average congregant thinks about the purpose of our faith community.
3. False. Most members of our congregation believes that our faith community exists not only to minister to them, but to the community and the world around us.
Your faith community’s growth rate is lower than that of the zip code in which it is located.
1. True. The community in which we are located is growing faster than our congregation.
2. Uncertain. I do not know the growth rate of my congregation or the surrounding community.
3. False. Our congregation is growing faster than the surrounding community.
Your congregation’s social-cultural-demographic makeup roughly reflects that of the zip code in which it is located.
1. True. The makeup of our congregation is similar to the makeup of the neighborhood.
2. Uncertain. I don’t know how to answer this question.
3. False. Our congregation is less diverse than the surrounding community.
The make up of your faith community’s zip code is changing and your congregation is growing.
1. True. Our neighborhood is in flux and our numbers are growing.
2. Uncertain. I’m not at all sure how the two compare.
3. False. Our neighborhood is changing and numbers are declining as long-time members leave (or die).
Your faith community has an endowment.
1. True. Our congregation has an unrestricted endowment that has been used for operating expenses.
2. True. Our congregation has a restricted endowment that cannot be used for operating expenses.
3. False. Our congregation has no endowment.
The leadership board has done a demographic study of the faith community’s zip code in the last five years.
1. True. Our leadership board has conducted a demographic study and verified it “on foot.”
2. True. Our leadership board has conducted a demographic study but has not verified it.
3. False. Our leadership board has not conducted a demographic study.
The leadership board has asked itself why your faith community exists at least once in the last three years.
1. True. Yup. I’ve heard that asked…answered, too.
2. Uncertain. I don’t really know.
3. False. I don’t think so. Why would they do that?
The leadership board has asked why a ministry or program exists at least once in the last year.
1. True. Indeed, the leadership board regularly asks that question.
2. Uncertain. I don’t recall. Maybe it was at one of the leadership board meetings I missed.
3. False. Wow! That would be awkward. I think not.
The leadership board has purposefully allowed at least one program or ministry to end and reported to the congregation what they have learned from the experience within the last three years.
1. True. Yes. I remember when they “retired” the [insert name here] committee.
2. Uncertain. I couldn’t tell you.
3. False. Not on my watch!
The average active participant in the congregation can describe in one or two sentences the congregation’s vision/mission.
1. True. Yes. I hear it at every worship service.
2. Uncertain. I’m not sure.
3. False. Nope. Don’t think I’ve ever heard it spoken. What was that slogan?

Finished? Great!

Step 2: Check your answers against this handy scoring guide and explanation.

[Click here for a PDF version of the scoring guide]

1. Your typical congregant thinks the purpose of your faith is to minister to the congregation.

True = 0 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 2

Explanation

Vital congregations believe that the purpose their church exists, not just to serve those inside the building but also in their neighborhoods. As a result, they tend to focus on nurturing and challenging their congregations and their neighborhoods.
Undead congregations put insufficient effort into developing neighborhood presence, connection, and openness. As a result, they tend to focus primarily on nurturing their congregations.

2. Your faith community’s growth rate is lower than that of the zip code in which it is located.

True = 0 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 2

Explanation

Vital congregations work to develop a significant neighborhood presence and connection. As a result, they naturally tend to expand (and contract) along with their neighborhoods.
Undead congregations put insufficient effort into developing neighborhood presence and connection. As a result, their growth rates tend to be less than that of their neighborhoods.

3. Your congregation’s social-cultural-demographic makeup bears a roughly positive relationship to that of the zip code in which it is located.

True = 1 | Uncertain = 0 | False = -1

Explanation

Vital congregations work to establish and maintain organic connections and relationships with all the various social-cultural-demographic groups that make up their neighborhoods. As a result, their diversity bears some relationship to that of their neighborhoods.
Undead congregations put insufficient effort into connecting and relating with the various groups that make up their neighborhoods. As a result, remain less diverse than their neighborhoods.

4. The makeup of your faith community’s zip code is changing and your congregation is growing.

True = 2 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 0

Explanation

Vital congregations work to establish and maintain connections and relationships with the social-cultural-demographic groups that make up their neighborhoods. As a result, they tend to grow as the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods shift.
Undead congregations put insufficient effort into connections and relationships with groups that make up their neighborhoods. As a result, they tend to stagnate or shrink as the demographic makeup of their neighborhoods shift.

5. Your church has an endowment.

Unrestricted Endowment = 0 | Restricted Endowment = 1 | No Endowment = 2

Explanation

Vital congregations tend to rely on income rather than endowed wealth to fund ministries and their structural maintenance. If they have endowments, they restrict themselves to using them only for capital expenses that will grow the congregation or benefit their neighborhoods. Personal investment leads to personal engagement in and responsibility for the wellbeing of the parish. Greater engagement and responsibility lead to greater vitality.
Undead congregations rely substantially on endowed wealth to fund ministries and structures, and tend to have unrestricted endowments which makes this easier to do. Lower levels of personal investment, lead to lower levels of personal engagement and responsibility which lead to congregational decline.

6. The leadership board has done a demographic study of the faith community’s zip code in the last five years.

Verified demographic study = 2 | Unverified demographic study = 1 | No study = 0

Explanation

Vital congregations regularly study the social-cultural-demographic make-up of their neighborhoods. This allows them to better tailor their ministries and programs to the needs of their neighborhoods. Really vital parishes really get outside the building to verify their assumptions and programmatic conclusions about the results.
Undead congregations rely on unverified assumptions and stereotypes about their neighborhoods. Because of this, the programs they offer to their neighborhoods, if any, tend to be poorly conceived and poorly received.

7. The leadership board has asked why your faith community exists at least once in the last three years.

True = 2 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 0

Explanation

Vital congregations regularly get beneath WHAT they do (ministries/programs) and HOW they do it (organizational structure/processes), and ask WHY they exist (their calling or purpose). This encourages them to listen to what God’s Spirit is calling them to do, allows them to be more creative, enables them to take appropriate risks in support of what God is calling them to be and to do.
Undead congregations, by definition, are faith communities that don’t know why they exist but pretend to be alive.

8. The leadership board has asked why a ministry or program exists at least once in the last year.

True = 2 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 0

Explanation

Vital congregations regularly assess the vitality of their ministries and programs. This allows them to take prayerful and thoughtful action to improve them or to end them if they are no longer serving a purpose.
Undead congregations have undead programs.

9. The leadership board has purposefully allowed at least one program or ministry to end and reported to the congregation what they have learned from the experience within the last three years.

True = 2 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 0

Explanation

Vital congregations regard failure as something to learn from rather than something to sweep under the rug. Faith communities with a theology that accepts failure and death as a natural part of life can harness the power of resurrection to learn, adapt, grow, and experience rebirth.
Undead congregations have undead programs. Faith communities with a theology that cannot accept failure and death as a natural part of life are unable to harness the power of resurrection to learn, adapt, grow, and experience rebirth.

10. The average active participant in the congregation can describe in one or two sentences the congregation’s vision/mission.

True = 2 | Uncertain = 1 | False = 0

Explanation

Vital congregations regularly communicate their vision and mission in a way that it can be clearly and easily grasped by all engaged in the life of the congregation, and that they can explain it to others. A faith community’s vision/mission is the DNA which both forms the congregation and allows it to adapt itself to its changing environment. As Albert Einstein once said, “If you cannot explain it to a six-year old, you do not understand it yourself.”
The membership of undead congregations has little sense of the faith community’s vision/mission, if one indeed exists at all in any meaningful way). They don’t understand it themselves, they can’t explain it to others, and so they just keep on shuffling forward, sapping the life force of all around them.

Now Add Up Your Points

________________

Interpreting Your Score

16 to 20: Congratulations! Your congregation is alive and well.

How will you work to keep it that way?

11 to 15: Warning! Your congregation may be at risk.

What can you do to build up their resistance?

0 to 10: Condolences… Your congregation is undead.

What will you do to bring it back to life? (Or is a funeral in order?)

Step 3: Decide What to Do.

Okay. You’ve taken the quiz and found out you’re leading a Zombie congregation or a faith community that’s at risk for becoming Undead. What do you do now?

Neither condition is easy to deal with. But stretching our Zombie metaphor just a little further, clearly a faith community that is at risk for going Zombie would be a lot easy-er to deal with than one that has already become Undead. After all, a congregation that is “merely” at risk still has a mind capable of critical thought. But by “definition,” a congregation that has actually gone Zombie no longer has a functioning mind and has lost the capacity for independent thought and with that the capacity for self-critical reflection.

If your faith community is merely at risk of becoming infected with Undeadness, you may be able to engage the congregation’s critical faculties by having the members of your leadership board take the same quiz you just did and then ask them what they make of their scores. While the quiz is admittedly somewhat tongue-in-cheek, engaging your leadership playfully on issues such as these may gain a lot more traction than a more somber approach. Once the can see the signs of impending Undeadness, they might be able to find a pathway back to full health. After all, while it may really piss you off first, knowing the truth will ultimately make you free (John 8:32).

If your faith community has already joined the ranks of the Undead, you are facing an infinitely greater challenge. Just as Hollywood Zombies do pretty good jobs of emulating many activities of the living, a Zombie faith community can also do a more than halfway-decent job of imitating healthy congregational life: often good enough to lure in the occasional non-member, and generally good enough to convince its own leadership and membership that a healthy, friendly, welcoming, vital congregation. They may have even convinced themselves that they want to grow (but just can’t seem to figure out why they don’t). More often, however, they may be found employing rationalizations like, “Growing in number is not the only kind of growth: growing in depth is valid, too.” Not that there’s anything wrong with growing deeper. For Christians, it’s just that actually deepening one’s relationship with Christ usually translates into a deeper encounter with Christ’s transforming love, which is usually marked by a natural desire to share that love with others.

When a faith community becomes so thoroughly convinced by its own rationalizations that it no longer retains the capacity for self-criticism, the only recourse may the proverbial “bullet to the head.” Once in a while, a Zombie congregation, as it grows closer to actual death, may benefit from the salutary effect of staring death in the face. Occasionally, this insight, combined with new leadership at the helm, may be capable of beginning the long road back to health. I’ve seen it happen, but it is rare. Unfortunately, many Zombie congregations would rather die than change. And if this is the case, the only options left are either: (a) let it “live” until it depletes the last of its own (a perhaps others’) resources of time, talent, and treasure, or (b) put it out of its misery now while sufficient resources remain to start a new faith community or invest in the living in some other way.

Daunting, right? Yet I can offer two rays of hope: Question #7 and a lot of prayer. If you can help your faith community remember WHY it exists – its reason for being – its first love – the Truth that can make it free – there may be a chance to come back from the brink. And prayer because, as Jesus said, “This kind can come out only through prayer” (Mark 9:29).

Sep 14 2015

Eight things the Church could learn from Downton Abbey

by Ken Howard and Wendy Dackson

Alrighty then! Our recent blog post “10 Ways the Church is Like Downton Abbey” got quite a lot of views. So, like our friends in Public Television, we decided to renew Downton Church for a second “season.” And the theme for season two is “Eight Lessons the Church Could Learn from Downton Abbey.”

Indeed, there much agreement in the comments we received that Downton Abbey – both the story and the production – was an excellent metaphor for the organized Church. Both are centuries-old institutions, both have a tendency toward aristocratic organization and behavior, both are steeped in tradition and stymied by traditionalism, both have a higher opinion of their own inherent holiness than their histories reveal. In other words, as institutions, both Downton Abbey and the Church are prone to similar mistakes.

Yet as the historical premise of Downton Abbey and the current cultural context of the Church (“in a world where everything is changing, an institution struggles for relevance…”) reveal, both institutions are capable – albeit reluctantly and imperfectly – of learning and change. So taking the metaphor a step further, what are some lessons that the Church can learn (or perhaps remember) from looking in the mirror of Downton Abbey.

Lesson #1 – Noblesse oblige (with nobility, obligation). One thing that the various members of the Crawley family learn again and again, each in different ways, is that with positions of social power and influence comes social obligations: an understanding of their responsibility for those whose lives and livelihoods depend upon them. Lord Robert always seems keenly aware of the house’s obligation to provide economic sustenance and social stability (maybe too much of the latter) to both those directly employed by the house, and those on the wider estate and in the village. Lady Cora seems more attentive – though in a somewhat naïve fashion – to the emotional lives of those who depend on them. Lady Mary, on the other hand, makes a transition from self-centered debutante to more of a socialite with a conscience, who understands that part of their responsibility to those around them is to remain relevant to their needs in a time when those needs are changing in big ways.

What might the Church learn? Despite the claim that churches are somehow under siege from the prevailing culture (at least in North America and western Europe), they still hold a privileged position. Whether as employers of lay professionals (educators, administrators, musicians, and a variety of others), or as shapers of public opinion and policy (as evidenced in the new-but-contested RIFRA laws in Indiana), they influence people well beyond who shows up in any given congregation on Sundays. That influence shapes public perception of the Church –for good or ill. Churches might be better attuned to how their actions affect those with whom they have little if any contact.

Lesson #2 – Willingness to change. Speaking of change, another thing the members of the Crawley household all seem to learn – albeit reluctantly – is that change (sometimes profound change) is often a necessity. And they display willingness (if under duress) to listen to and act on (if sometimes fumblingly) voices other than their own about better ways forward. Indeed, one by one each of the family members seem to learn the painful lesson that the world doesn’t revolve around their comfortable traditions, and that awareness of the changing needs of the world around them often requires them to adapt – not just by adding electricity, telephones, radios, and other new-fangled technology, or sporting new fashions at social occasions, but by making deeper changes and finding new reasons for being.

What might the Church learn? That “modernizing” is more than trying to be “trendy” or “relevant” to a particular generation – right now, the millennials. Concentrating on new music that sounds more like what young people hear on the radio, or being more “cool” in the language used in preaching, or using “contemporary” forms of worship isn’t enough – worse than not enough, in some cases it may actually be harmful: like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, when we really need to be getting people into lifeboats. This is not a new problem. Every generation in From the very beginning, every generation in Church has faced the challenge of translating the Gospel for a new generation. The problem arises when, instead of offering the new generation a true translation in words they understand, we instead sugarcoat it with passing cultural affections in order to make it easier to swallow. True modernizing means discovering what are the public perceptions and beliefs about the faith are and addressing them honestly and directly, without compromising the core of Christian faith or cheapening the tough demands that being a follower of Jesus entails. It isn’t easy or quick, the way changing up the music or adding projection screens might be.

Lesson #3 – A Sense of Family. At Downton, the servants are more than simply support staff to the family and the house. By and large, there is a palpable sense of family between the upstairs Crawleys and the downstairs servants: a feeling of connection and interrelatedness. And while the relationship is not always pleasant – or healthy, for that matter – it is deep and strong… How else could a character like Thomas survive for all these seasons? And how else could the Dowager and Isobell become such a mutually (and lovingly) irritating odd couple.

What might the Church learn? William Temple is frequently misquoted as saying that “the church is the only institution that exists primarily for those outside it” (click here to read what he actually said), how Christians behave toward other Christians is important. When the Church treats its loyal members badly – especially when longtime, committed lay people are treated badly – it does more than encourage those individuals to leave. It undermines the public perception of the Church as a benevolent institution. Because when church is important to people, they share all the reasons why. But when church loses its luster, people share those reasons, too.

Lesson #4 –Willingness to “bend the rules” in order to “do the right thing.” There is a ongoing tension at Downton Abbey between the need to respect the rules (or follow tradition, which is harder) societally and the need to do what is right in individual cases. And example of this was the case of Mrs. Patmore’s dead nephew, Archie, and his exclusion from the war memorial, which Lord Grantham resolved by erecting a special memorial to honor Archie’s sacrifice. This goes to the heart of the tension in the church between tradition (honoring things that have been tested by time) and traditionalism (worshipping tradition for its own sake), which the Church has had to learn century after century.

What might the Church learn? First, we might learn that some rules just shouldn’t exist in at all. Second, we might learn that service doesn’t have to be perfect to be sincere and devoted, and that the people who render service also don’t have to be perfect, either. Finally, we might learn that we will garner more loyalty by finding ways to show appreciation than we will by finding ways to withhold it.

Lesson #5 – Willingness to find humane ways to outplace members of the downstairs household when continued relationship becomes untenable. Time and again, the Crawley family finds ways to part ways with servants who have become too difficult or embarrassing to endure. On the plus side, they realize that in an “incestuous” institution like the aristocracy one has to take great care in the way that people are let go, since termination without reference is tantamount to a sentence of lifelong poverty or worse (in the case of pregnant Ivy), and even laying off a person due to the elimination of a specialized position (in the case of Mosley) may render an otherwise loyal and competent former employee without honorable work. They have learned from painful experience not to throw anybody “under the bus.”

What might the Church learn? Don’t throw people under the bus. See Lessons #1 and #3. ‘Nuff said.

Lesson #6 – Willingness to find ways to support and applaud the personal and professional goals and ambitions members of the downstairs household. An ongoing trope throughout the seasons of Downton is the ambitions of the downstairs household. We have seen housemaids become secretaries, footmen become chefs, kitchen maids become assistant cooks and aspiring farm owners, butlers and housekeepers become real estate entrepreneurs, and chauffeurs become family members and estate stewards. Lady Sybil helped Gwen get a job as a secretary; the entire household has been supportive of Daisy’s attempt to further her education (even if the family didn’t much care for Miss Bunting, her teacher). Alfred’s acceptance to culinary school was a triumph and a point of pride for upstairs and downstairs, and he went to London with everyone’s best wishes. Tragically, William Mason’s aspirations to serve his country did not turn out well, but the household honored his service.

What might the Church learn? Keeping people “in their place” might be beneficial to the institution – but only in the short term. Downton Abbey benefited from Tom Branson’s transition from chauffeur to estate steward (and beloved family member). Arguably, difficult as it was for the family to adjust, without Branson’s acumen and skill, the family might have fallen into financial ruin. The Church might find it difficult to believe that lay people could have skills the Church either doesn’t recognize or didn’t confer, or that some might have more theological learning than the majority of priests and bishops. Nonetheless, without the laity, the Church will fall into ruin. A little permeability between the ranks might be a good thing for all concerned.

Lesson #7 – Keeping secrets is a tricky business. Of course, there are secrets and “secrets.” Any relationship – whether family, friends, or business – has a certain degree of confidentiality that must be respected. Trust depends on that. Most of the Downton characters, but especially servants especially, have a degree of knowledge about other characters which could be devastating if it were more widely known. Anna (nee Smith, now Bates) kept housemaid Gwen’s aspirations to a secretarial career to herself once she knew them – and skillfully made the distinction between “private” and “secret” when questioned by Mr. Carson. Anna also has kept the much more sinister secret of the Turkish Ambassador’s (Mr. Pamuk) death in the supposedly-virgin Lady Mary’s bed, and not used it as a bargaining chit for her own advantage. Former-footman, now under-butler Thomas has threatened to do so, however, although his previously-secret (and then illegal) homosexuality would have come to light to his disadvantage. (That was handled interesting by Lord Robert when questioned about Thomas’s behavior.) Thomas kept the secret of how Lady Cora lost her unborn child…until it was advantageous to share it with his erstwhile enemy Mr. Bates.

What might the Church learn? In any community setting, people are going to know things about each other. Not everybody will know everything about everyone else, and that is fine. But we need to learn discretion and kindness in how we deal with confidences. That goes not only for laity, but clergy as well – there may be a bit of a stereotype of “church gossips” like that of Dana Carvey’s SNL “Church Lady” character, but ordained people equally can be the soul of indiscretion.

Don’t remember the Church Lady? Click here to refresh your memory.

Lesson #8 – Awareness of the world outside our walls. Downton Abbey (whether we are talking about the characters, story line, or production) seems to understand that there is a world beyond their walls, that to some is equally if not more compelling and attractive – and may be compelling and attractive to those within the walls (Alfred the footman who wanted to be a chef, assistant cook Daisy wanting to learn to run a farm, Lady Sybil training for nursing and marrying Tom Branson). And there is an acceptance (sometimes grudging, but pragmatic) and even encouragement (when there is manifestly no choice) to go explore that world.

What might the Church learn? The Church needs to understand that very few people – and probably a vanishingly small number of people under age 60 – believe any more that there is “no salvation outside the Church.” The Church may be a formative community, and a locus of spiritual and moral learning, but not the site of many peoples’ highest aspirations, as it might have been hundreds of years ago. The Church may need to think of itself as a starting place for peoples’ spiritual and moral journeys, but not necessarily the entire road they will travel.

That’s all we have to say for now, though we are certain we have not wrung the Downton Abbey metaphor completely dry. Will there be “Season 3” of Downton Church? That all depends on how much feedback we get from you…

In the meantime, if you’d like a more musical and satirical take on Downton Abbey, click here.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO7t7fRk4IU]

Sep 07 2015

Ten ways the Church is like Downton Abbey

By Ken Howard & Wendy Dackson

[Simulblogged on FaithX and Past Christian]

It all started a few days ago, when Ken came across an Episcopal Church Meme on Facebook and reposted on his own Facebook page with a comment about how it reminded him of Downton Abbey (and not exactly in a good way). The meme in question, displayed below, showed the Presiding Bishop, along with several other resplendently attired clergy and lay people lined in the National Cathedral nave, with the slogan “Ancient Tradition. Modern Outlook. That’s the Episcopal Church.”

Much to Ken’s surprise, his snarky yet somber comment – that the Church should more than simply the “thoughtful theatre” of Downton Abbey – touched of hours of free association – between Ken, Wendy, and friends – about the many and varied ways in which Downton Abbey could serve as a metaphor for the Church generally, and the Episcopal Church specifically. [scroll to the bottom for Ken’s original comment]

By the time all was said and done, there was enough material for a blog post on the subject. What follows are the several of the ways the Church is like Downton Abbey, the fictional castle, and Downton Abbey, the show.

Way #1
Both are institutions caught between the future and the past, uncertain of their relevance in the present. Downton Abbey is a beautiful mansion, balancing ancient splendor with modern conveniences, but its occupants are not entirely certain what they stand for amidst the changes and chance of the world – something old, something new, something borrowed, something…missing – with some of its inhabitants trying to find relevance by fitting into a much-fantasized future and other trying desperately to hang on to an over-idealized past. Sort of like the Church, right?

Way #2
Both are overly focused on caste, class, and rank. At both Downton Abbey and in the Church there is a definite caste system at work, and within each caste, a fiercely protected hierarchy. In Downton, there is the division between the aristocracy and the servants/villagers, and it is especially in the “common” class, the majority, where rank is most obviously important – it’s very important to be an assistant cook rather than a kitchen maid, or to be acknowledged as first In the Church, the caste system is most obviously seen in, but is not limited to, the clergy-lay divide). On the clergy side of the divide, the three ordained orders have morphed from three equally valued vocations into a hierarchical ladder in which too many are reaching for the next rung. And on the lay side, rank is too often reflected in who gets asked to be senior warden, who is “admitted” to the Altar Guild, who gets elected to General Convention, etc.

Way #3
Both are unreflectively obsessed with the preservation of the status quo. At Downton Abbey, when the Crawley family fortunes are on the decline, the question is not “how do we deal with changing circumstances?” but “how do we keep things going as they have been?” Meanwhile, the Church is still hanging on to the need to make things look like they did immediately after the Second World War: married with children, and the centerpiece of people’s social lives. This leads on to….

Way #4
Both are pretending to be in a time and place other than those in which they actually exist. Highclere Castle, the house that is the real star of Downton Abbey, is in post-modern Hampshire, far south and a century later than the Crawley estate in post-Edwardian Yorkshire, yet serves as a setting for acting out social conventions and attitudes from a bygone era. The Church – including and often particularly our own Episcopal Church, has a tendency to behave as though it is much more deeply anchored in the past than it currently is, preferring to imagine that is rooted in Victorian or medieval England, or better yet the early Christian era, while most of its current controversies are rooted firmly in the Modernism of the so-called Enlightenment and much of its current attitudes are grounded in the 1950s.

Way #5
Both are closed systems, suspicious of “outsiders.” Downton Abbey is, to a large extent, a closed system. Not only is it exceptionally difficult to cross from one caste to another within the house (Tom Branson being the prime example, having been a chauffeur and marrying one of the Crawley daughters), but it is even more difficult to come in as an outsider. Sometimes, this suspicion and hostility has worked to the benefit of the household: one can name Sir Richard Carlisle, Lady Mary’s wealthy-but-nasty beau prior to her marriage to Matthew Crawley. Matthew, the distant heir to the title and estate, along with his mother Isobel, did not exactly receive an enthusiastic welcome to the family, either. But at least Carlisle and Matthew had some claim (either wealth and social rank or blood) to entering the system. More recently, Miss Sarah Bunting, a teacher who again crosses lines of rank (by tutoring assistant cook Daisy, and having a bit of romantic possibility with Tom Branson), finds it impossible to be an acceptable dinner guest at the Abbey. Likewise, churches often promote themselves as “welcoming”, but function as closed systems where newcomers have a difficult time finding an acceptable role. Which leads to…

Way #6
Both regularly rely on a system of assimilation rather than welcome. In Downton, the Crawley family ultimately learns to love and accept Tom Branson, and even to rely on his considerable gifts and talents but only after they seduce him into assimilating into their customs, manners, dress, and other affectations. Ultimately, he begins to wonder who he really is and what he has become: almost an aristocrat but still suffering from a kind of imposter’s syndrome, uncertain about the “price” of his acceptance. Churches often make the same error in their newcomer incorporation efforts, mistaking assimilation for welcome. And in almost every denomination, the Church’s systems for discerning and training clergy tend to act as an over-active immune system, weeding out any leadership that would challenge the status quo.

Way #7
Both have a tendency, if not careful, to reduce people to their roles. In Downton, Sir Robert often reduces Cora to her role as his wife, being unable to remember that she is (a) an attractive woman (evidenced in the suspicion of her adultery with the art expert), and (b) having interests (such as her knowledge of art and music) apart from the Abbey and the family. In Church, this is often seen in our overreliance on clergy for pastoral care and an under-reliance on lay people. Wendy recently experienced this with a Facebook friend – an Episcopal priest – who on learning she had sustained a broken wrist, asked (on Facebook) if she wanted a visit “from my parish priest,” when what she would really rather have was a visit from a friend. (She didn’t get the visit.)

Way #8
Both often engage in secret keeping and triangulation in defense of honor. This is almost a weekly trope on Downton, with almost every character hiding a secret from at least one other character, often from the world at large, often as an “open secret,” enough to provide “plausible deniability” of the ”elephant in the room,” and generally with the aim of defending the family’s honour. The issue is never about preventing wrongdoing (or doing the right thing to begin with) but rather to prevent scandal. Better to send the person who “caused” the embarrassment away than to confront the underlying issues. In the Church, one need not look farther than most denomination’s disciplinary procedures to find evidence of this dynamic. From pedophile priests to drunk-driving bishops, the system is concerned less with supporting healthy behavior than it is with punishing bad behavior, and less with catching and rectifying bad behavior early than with ridding itself of those who manage to get themselves caught. Which is kind of related to…

Way #9
Both often resort to scapegoating. In Downton, the plot lines tend to either kill off or run off anyone who might make a positive bridge between old and new, or give a critical view of the status quo. Think hard about Lady Sybil, Matthew Crawley, Tom Branson… and then think of what church does when someone wants to bridge divides. As Ken once said, “If you want to be a bridge, be prepared to be stepped from both sides. And finally…

Way #10
Both are metaphors of poor stewardship of real estate. The one thing that becomes immediately clear about Downton Abbey is that most of its living space is unlived in most of the time. One of the reasons they need so many maids is to keep the dust from settling on all the furniture in the unused rooms. If those rooms were being used more frequently, they would not need to be dusted so frequently, because in a well-used home, the activity of the occupants make dusting almost unnecessary. And what’s more, judging by their obvious relief when the injured soldiers are relocated at the end of the “Great” War, it’s clear the Crawley’s would like to keep it that way. Most churches are similarly poor stewards of their “living space.” A few services on Sunday, maybe another on Saturday evening, a few meetings during the week… That adds up to a lot of empty space. And even those who rent out their space do so more out of financial need than out of an earnest desire to put their buildings to their highest use.

Got some examples you’d like to add? We’d love to hear from you…

Coming soon: “What the Church Could Learn from Dowton Abbey” (Spoiler alert: The list is shorter)

Ken’s original snarky Facebook comment:

This recently posted Episcopal Church Meme just doesn’t do it for me. It seems to be proclaiming that the Episcopal Church is sorta like Downton Abbey: a beautiful mansion, balancing ancient splendor with modern conveniences, but with occupants not not 100% certain what they stand for amidst the changes and chance of the world. Something old, something new, something borrowed, something…missing… A two-legged stool: Tradition and Reason, minus Scripture.

I mean, I loves me some Downton Abbey but the Episcopal Church I joined is more than thoughtful theatre. We have a core of theology solidly ground in Scripture. Obscuring our engagement with Scripture doesn’t make us more attractive. Rather it makes us seem…empty.

Aug 15 2015

Why we should ban the term “heretic”…

by Ken Howard

Lord Sandwich:

“I have heard frequent use of the words Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy: but I confess myself at a loss know precisely what they mean.”

Lord Warburton:

“It’s very simple old chap. Orthodoxy is my doxy. Heterodoxy is anyone else’s doxy.”

An exchange between John Montagu, Earl of Sandwich, and William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, in the House of Lords in the mid-18^th century debates on the “Test Laws.”

I am writing today’s post to explain my thoughts to a long time friend and associate. Brad and I go way back. We share great respect and affection for one another despite the fact that sometimes it seems we agree on little beyond the acknowledgement that we are brothers in Christ. I am writing to explain why I believe that the way many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are using the term “heretic” is not only wrong, but very injurious to the body of Christ. I am not writing as a conservative Christian or a liberal Christian. I reject those terms as a false dichotomy. For me, following Jesus Christ is enough. And so in this post I do not speak for or against either “side,” but as one Christ-follower to another, and to any who want to listen in (and even comment) as fellow Christ-follower. I speak only for myself, and only to explain humbly what is at the heart of the matter for me, as my understanding of Scripture, the love of Christ, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the grace of God have led me thus far.

I should say at the outset that is topic of heresy is personal to me. As a Jewish-Christian, I have had a great interest and have done a great deal of research on Jewish Christianity in the early Church, including an extensive research thesis on the topic during seminary. What I discovered in my research has shaped my thinking on orthodoxy and heresy ever since. From at least the 4^th Century on, my Jewish Christian forebears have borne the brunt of the organized Church’s misuse of the terms. Some, like the Nazarene Jewish Christians, were declared heretical at Nicaea and excommunicated as a group not long thereafter on the virulent anti-Jewish insistence of Emperor Constantine. During the Spanish Inquisition, hundreds, if not thousands, of Jewish Christian “Conversos” were labeled as heretics, interrogated/tortured, and executed because the Church didn’t trust their conversions. Even in my seminary days, a respected professor of liturgics argued that combining Jewish and Christian worship elements was “heterodox.” To which I replied, “Christ our Passover?”

So what follows, is my argument against the use of the term, “heretic.”

[Read more…]

Related articles

Related articles