Territorial Bloggings

It’s funny how two people/groups can both use a particular word, even one with a simple meaning, yet end up meaning very different things by it.

Take “growth” for example. Everybody wants growth. Everybody agrees that growth is a good thing. We like it when our congregations get more members. We like it when our church bodies get bigger. And why shouldn’t we? Even when we don’t fall into the “effectiveness” trap, wherein numbers = faithfulness/blessings, growth makes us feel good.

What’s interesting, though, is when you get a congregation where there are two groups that “agree” on growth as a goal, but where they really don’t mean the same thing by that word.

For example, in a congregation I’m more than a little familiar with (let the reader understand), there is a general agreement that missions & growth are good. There are, however, two general groups:

Group One is quite happy with the internal status quo of the congregation. Doesn’t want a second service added (that would “splinter the congregation”) on Sundays, has come to terms with the land-locked nature of the current building, etc… This group is more “Old Line” Missourian in its understanding of certain theological concepts (as opposed to gnesio-Lutheran/BoC-1580 Confessional). This group is, thus, more change resistant/averse, even as it recognizes on a certain level that mission is good & necessary. They’re just not sure how to best go about doing it.

Group Two is more aggressive in its understanding of growth. It is willing to push boundaries, add programs/services/etc… It has been more effected by American Evangelicalism. Some have been thoroughly inculcated in foundational Lutheranism, some not so much. Some in this group tip a bit too easily over into the “effectiveness” trap in their zeal to get numerical growth.

Both groups mean well. Both groups love each other. This is, let there be no doubt, a good congregation with a good, faithful, undershepherd who properly divides Law and Gospel. The Divine Service is conducted liturgically with reverence. The Word is proclaimed, and the Sacraments are rightly administered.

But, yet, these two groups still talk past each other re: growth. There has, as of yet, been no move towards a truly open conversation about realistic feelings, opinions, and goals (wouldn’t want to offend anyone, don’tcha know…). Which is too bad, ’cause if you can’t do it at church, where can you do it?

For example, if the current building is land-locked, and there is a defensible desire to have only one Sunday service, then both groups need to come to terms with the results of those realities, re: congregation size, available resources, staff size, etc… Mayhaps, the best course of action, then is a concerted effort at getting a daughter church plant up & running nearby (you know, the way Missouri grew back in the day…).

I certainly don’t have the answers (if I did, I would’ve, you know, fixed it by now…). I do think, however, that identifying the issue is an important first step. Maybe it’ll help someone else out, too. Here’s hoping…

-ghp