The In-Between Church

In one sense, every church, congregation, fellowship, or whatever it chooses to call itself, is an in-between church. It is in-between yesterday and tomorrow, its history and its future, what was and what will be. The full title of Alice Mann’s book narrows her context: The In-Between Church: Navigating Size Transitions in Congregations.

Mann combines her own experience as a pastor and as a nationally recognized consultant to congregations with that of other consultants and academians and postulates four congregation types: Family Size, Pastoral Size, Program Size and Corporate Size. She attaches numbers to these “purebreds:” Family Size is up to about 50, Pastoral from 70-150, Program from 200-350 and Corporate over 400. I’m sure the mega-churches have some additional categories over 1,000 or so, but I don’t suspect that will be of much concern to our Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Marquette.

Three things are important to note about these numbers: (1) They are somewhat arbitrary. The real determinant of congregational type is how it functions, not its size and some churches function well as a particular type although they are the “wrong” size. Emphasize some, not lots. (2) The number does not relate to our most cherished statistic: membership. Membership is meaningless in this discussion. The number refers to average annual weekend attendance at services, adults and children. Of course, a congregation whose ratio of children to adults is three-to-one might have to adjust the numbers upward. These are averages. Participation determines the health of a congregation, not membership rolls. Churches vary in the definition of membership as well as their practices for removing members from their rolls. (3) You may have noticed the numbers I quoted do not touch. Congregations that fall in the gaps are the In-Between-Churches. Between Family Size and Pastoral Size is 51-69; Pastoral to Program is 151-199, and so on. Mann calls them Plateau Zones.

Martin and Joan talked at last week’s forum about attending a Midwest District conference on strategies of growing a congregation from 150 to 250. That conference targeted congregations interested in moving from the Pastoral model to the Program model.

One way to learn about a congregation’s history is to plot its annual average weekend attendance over a number of years. We don’t have historical statistics available. We do have them for the last 52 weeks, with a couple of missing weeks along the way. We averaged 52 people attending each Sunday, (43 adults and 9 children). Our peak was 75. Adults ranged from 15-60 and children from 0-20. We are missing a few weeks and a quick look at the numbers indicates some rounding has been going on (over 25% of the weeks have the number of adults exactly divisible by 10,) but despite all that ambiguity, we find ourselves creeping into the transition zone between Family and Pastoral.

So what?

Let me start to answer that question by describing Family and Pastoral congregations. A family church is primarily a social system that closely resembles an extended biological family. Mann says it this way, “We all know each other… A healthy family-sized church is usually known in the community for one vibrant ministry focus, often some form of direct service to the community offered in a down-home style.” Because of their size if Family Churches have clergy, it is typically only part-time and usually short-term. Whether or not there is clergy, leadership resides in the matriarchs and patriarchs. Clergy are wanted for pastoral care, but assume at their peril that they are the chief executive officer or resident religious authority.

Pastoral-sized churches are “a multi-celled organism—a coalition of several overlapping family-friendship networks unified around the person and role of the pastor.” However, churches with less than 100 average attendance often cannot afford a full-time clergy position and so there is considerable turnover. This size church tends to look and feel like a “real” church (typified by the movie concept) but small enough to feel personal. In all likelihood if you visit and stay for the coffee afterwards, someone will introduce you to the minister. In the community, this congregation is known for two or three strong ministries including worship with a personal touch.

Mann writes from the perspective of clergy, but nothing is lost by substituting other terms when she uses “pastor” or “minister,” and recognizing a non-clerical leader can fill that role. For convenience, I will continue to use traditional language, but I ask you to broaden it to include less traditional concepts.

So why a plateau between these two sized churches? Why isn’t it a smooth transition? Two reasons: First, consider scale and complexity. As congregations grow, the number of possible social interactions among members increases astronomically. Clergy generally come in units of one, although part-time clergy is available, as noted earlier, they tend not to stay part-time. The structure needed to support a congregation of thirty is not the same needed for seventy-five. Personal communications no longer are realistic for all things and other methods are required to keep members informed. Not everyone will be interested in all of the same things.

The second reason is that in the plateau area many nearly invisible hindrances converge to prevent the assimilation of new members and the full participation of those already on the rolls. When reaching a transition zone, a congregation can consciously address the issues necessary to pull through the transition and enter the next congregational model or consciously or unconsciously choose to remain in the current mode. Many, if not most, congregations unconsciously choose to remain in their current mode.

While in transition, congregational life tends to be confusing and stressful. The past leaders remember when things were simpler and better (or so they tell themselves.) Those currently in power generally wish to remain so, even though many do not realize this to be the case. “It was so much easier then,” they say to themselves. “A couple of us got together over coffee and we got it done.” The democratic process becomes messier when there are multiple points of view.

Worship space is often a constraint. It was for us when we met at the Brickyard space. When seating is 80% or more full, visitors will perceive a “no room at the inn” sign. When counting available seats, don’t count the ones no one ever sits in – unless a group consciously takes them. For example, the first row is often wasted space, except without it there would be no second row. One larger congregation when faced with space problems solved this by a group of friends in the choir agreeing that the first two rows would be their seats. Here, our kids often resolve the issue for us.

Physical space can also be a constraint in the children’s religious education classes, or places not accessible by those with disabilities. Outside space limitations are advertised by a full parking lot. That’s one reason the spots reserved for visitors are in the front of the lot. I have been delighted to note that many of the first arrivals for the Adult Forum park away from the door to assure others they are welcome. Are there enough hymnals and service programs, or are visitors who arrive just before the service left without? Are there hearing assistance devices available? Since moving here two years ago, we have consciously addressed our physical limitations to good effect.

Space limitations are not the only “we’re closed” signs that a congregation can put out. Others are more subtle. How are visitors treated? Are they welcomed naturally as they arrive the first time? The second? Do people talk with them after the service? Are handouts available for the shy to grab to get a feel for the congregation rather than asking questions? Is the space visually attractive, etc.? When I was looking for a congregation in New Jersey years ago, I attended a congregation once. I was invisible, or so it appeared. They never got a second chance.

There are also more subtle “leave us alone” signals. One of the most common in Family Sized congregations is an inability or lack of interest in integrating visitors into the fold. If visitor statistics are kept, this can be illustrated based on the percentage of visitors who become regular participants (whether or not they become members.) Mann tells of a congregation that made a great outreach effort and increased the number of visitors substantially, yet after two years, they had not grown. Sometimes the communication loop is closed and visitors don’t get invitations to events (“Oh we always get together the first Sunday after the second Friday after the moon shifts from waxing to waning.”) Sometimes they are invited to join (or even lead) committees and then their input is ignored. “Oh, we’ve always done it this way.” Sometimes they offer to do a job that clearly needs to be done and are told, often with a roll of the eyes acknowledging the problem – “Oh, Tyrannosaurus Rex takes care of that.”

These “sorry, we’re full” strategies are very successful. If growth pushes participation into the transition zone, unless the roadblocks are addressed in a positive manner, attendance will shrink back to the “desired” level – and that decline to the “norm” further strengthens the behaviors that caused the reversion to lower levels: “See, I told you this growth was just a temporary thing – good thing we didn’t [fill in the blank] it would have been a costly waste.” Those who favored growth may be among those who leave the congregation, leaving the field to the “we like it like it is” group. Often the process is not recognized until it is too late to change. Sometimes the congregation splits into camps and wars over the issue. Both sides lose from that process, but often the perceived loser leaves the fold.

A church in the transition zone is like a church sitting on a fault line. Everything may be calm on the surface, but underneath tensions continue to grow. Remaining in the transition zone for an extended period leads to more tension. The strength and appeal of the previous size is already compromised, and at the same time, the benefits of the next size are not yet apparent. With deliberate, considered action, the tension can be channeled into positive energy. Well, isn’t that just a nice way of saying it’s a lot of work to move through a transition?

Of course, although deciding one’s future rather than having it thrust upon us seems the better alternative to me. And, there is no reason to think that the work cannot be accompanied by lots of fun. What are the key transitions a congregation must make to successfully grow from a Family to Pastoral community?

One key is the support of the matriarchs and patriarchs. If they are in the community for the status and recognition they (rightfully) receive and are unwilling to give it up, the transition is likely to be very rocky. Withering comments squelch discussion. “We’re sacrificing quality for quantity,” and “we’re losing the character of the place,” or “we’re creating divisions if everyone can’t do everything.” If instead, they embrace the change and recognize their vital role as leaders of the community growth, they will probably discover with the change that they too will have an opportunity to grow into new, perhaps more spiritually fulfilling roles. An open environment for discussion, experimentation and change must be available.

It is a struggle for some to realize that each event of the congregation does not need to include every member of the community, yet if a congregation is to move from Family to Pastoral, it is necessary. I remember when Rob Billideau sponsored his first breakfast before an adult forum. Jan and I live sufficiently far away that it was not practical for us to be there, so when we talked with Rob after the service we asked how it had gone. “Not so good,” he said, “We only had about twenty people.” “That was great,” Jan and I responded in unison.

Rob reacted to the support for his breakfast as if we were family. He issued an invitation to his new family and unless we had a prior commitment, we all should come. Jan and I were responding from a Pastoral or Program mentality: holy mackerel, more than a third of the congregation showed up for an early breakfast with only a week’s notice – a terrific turnout – what wonderful support people can get from our community.

We do struggle with this issue in the way many of our committee meeting dates are determined. We can’t meet unless everyone will be there – and often the result is we don’t meet to do the necessary work of the community. I’m not suggesting that committee meetings have to be locked on a calendar a year in advance (I know a church that tried to do that – with the lack of success you might predict), but as one grows it is necessary to move away from we can’t do it unless all involved can participate. A good example of this compromise is choir practice. In most Pastoral or larger churches it is on a particular night for specific hours. If you want to be in the choir, your schedule has to meet the practice needs. If you can’t, for whatever reason, you have to give up choir until you can rearrange your schedule.

In the transition process, it is important to accommodate fiscal realism, starting with an honest appraisal of what size congregation the larger community can support. Unless a congregation can average weekend attendance of at least 100, it is unlikely to be able to afford full-time professional staffing. Going through a transition zone can sometimes be a monetary challenge. To grow, the experts suggest you must have staffing at a minimum of one full-time position for every 100 active members (i.e. average weekend attendance). That does not include janitorial or worship music program. If a congregation does not staff at a growth level, there will be insufficient human resources available to both tend to current congregation needs and worry about growth. Burnout will also quickly occur. Given our size, our budgeted staffing levels for Religious Education Coordinator and Community Development Coordinator provide room for growth.

During a growth phase, leaders, whether or not clergy, paid staff or volunteers must recognize that resistance is a natural phenomenon during a transition. They should not take it personally – the angst is not directed at them as persons, but at the organization as it matures, and forces us to mature as well.

Should MUUC grow? If so, why? Some have said so we can afford to hire professional clergy. Some might think that alone is a sufficient reason to avoid growth. The answer should resolve based on our mission. Growth for the sake of numbers or so we can afford something is meaningless to me. Growth so we can do more for our spiritual community and the community at large resonates with my beliefs.

Alan C. Klass studied the relationship between the quality of a congregation’s internal ministries and its openness to numerical growth. As reported by Mann, he found churches fell into three categories: “20-30% are outreach-oriented in both their self-concept and their behavior; … 30-40% express an interest in gaining new members, but have neither a mission-centered self-image nor specific outreach methods to translate their interest into action…the third group (about 40%) are clearly focused on caring for their current members. New people are welcomed to the extent that they are prepared to fit into existing patterns and activities.”

He found the 20-30% which were outwardly focused in both service and invitation have the fullest internal life, fewest financial difficulties and are the most likely to grow. I would prefer MUUC join that 20-30% group.

Transitions are not quick and they are not easy, but some transition is inevitable. Remaining exactly the same does not happen. Mann notes that congregations either take the time to understand their spiritual and functional needs and focus their efforts on addressing them, or they fritter away their opportunity and retreat.

James Montgomery Jackson
September 14, 2008