Phil Bergey
philb@designforministry.com

In my two most recent blog entries I outlined a series of trends faced by the church at large and by Franconia Mennonite Conference specifically. This final blog entry—completing the trends trilogy, shall we say, focuses on three key opportunities for learnings that bear additional reflection as I complete my leadership role with Franconia Conference.

The learnings grow out of the need for Franconia Mennonite Conference to strengthen its sustainability and focus its mission. As congregations have been spending more on their local ministry presence, financial giving to the conference and church-wide has been decreasing. So over the past decade FMC has been risking by exploring new scenarios. As noted in the previous blog:

One [scenario] was to re-organize and/or re-allocate FMC properties so they could help underwrite administrative expenses and augment the decline from congregational dollars. Another was to move some FMC staff to a fee-for-service format, creating Mennonite Resources Network (MRN). And another was to unite all FMC-related ministries into a relational network of Conference Related Organizations (CROs).

A quick look at each.

FMC Properties
From my perspective church-owned properties are a mixed bag. It’s like the proverbial “can’t-live-with-‘em and can’t-live-without-‘em.” They take a lot of money to build or buy, money and time to maintain, and can overwhelm the purpose for which we originally intended to use them.

Among Franconia Conference learnings in working with properties, it has become clearer than ever that property must contribute strategically to the mission of the conference or they will take more energy than they provide. A simple goal was that the properties would not use up any contributed dollars but that instead they would collectively carry their own expense and even contribute to administrative expenses of running a conference.

In order to assess decisions about properties, Franconia Conference has become more intentional about including the gifts of people who truly understand properties, such as a realtor, property manager, attorney or other profession that works with properties for a living. Keeping the focus on the Conference’s mission sometimes means changing the use of a property and sometimes selling a property.

For about ten years Franconia Conference owned a 12-acre, 3-building campus on Yoder Road in Harleysville, Pa. For multiple reasons it became clear to Conference leaders that it would be to the church’s advantage if the conference would sell this property to one of the long-term tenants, Mennonite Historians of Eastern Pennsylvania (MHEP). Although some people initially questioned the Conference Board’s decision to move in this direction, most now agree it was a mutually beneficial decision that secures the future of MHEP, the ministry organization that the conference relies on to keep its historical record into the future.

Mennonite Resources Network (MRN)
The concept for MRN emerged around 1997 along with other significant changes that surfaced around that time (including the move from program-based commissions to a board-based leadership model). MRN began originally with two main focii: web-based communications and a platform to provide consulting.

The MRN web site evolved into at least three things: 1) a web site for Franconia Conference, 2) a web site for Eastern District Conference, and 3) on-line sales of resources that eventually was acquired by Design For Ministry, a consulting company which purchased MRN’s assets and liabilities.

MRN’s consulting model allowed Franconia Conference to focus its mission and core processes and to tidy up its staffing commitments that had become too broad and unwieldy for the future. This happened in several ways. At the time Conference leaders were trying to simplify a primary mission (equipping leaders…), the ability to move remaining staff to MRN offered a new start. MRN in turn became a proving ground and launching pad for staff to move into a consulting pattern for ministry.

Along the way a difficult learning was that entrepreneuring within the church is even more challenging than in other settings. Innovation involves risk—relationally, financially and organizationally. Newness requires outstanding communication. New initiatives need to be focused and made tangible for people to value them. Franconia Conference leaders generally, including me particularly, learned some of these fully during the years of developing MRN.

Yet despite the challenges, additional benefits related to experimenting with MRN included several partnerships between Franconia Conference and Mennonite World Conference, income from a creative partnership with Ted & Lee Theatre Works, and opportunities to shape the early stages of Mennonite Church USA. The consulting format of MRN also prepared the way for Franconia Conference to move from overseers to conference ministers and consultants as a way of equipping leaders to empower others to embrace God’s mission.

Conference Related Ministries (CRMs)
Some of you are familiar with the acronym CRO, which stood for Conference Related Organization. This was an initiative to bring together the many ministry organizations that relate to Franconia Conference from schools to camps to retirement communities to many others. The goals of this initiative was to clarify the relational commitments and shared vision with these many ministries, and to create a relational network that the CROs would help to support financially as they grew. Both of these goals paralleled the congregations’ relationships with the conference.

Along the way it became clear that the term CRO needed to give way to CRM to highlight that these are not simply conference related organizations, but ministries. A key learning for Franconia Conference leaders is that mutual benefit leads to sustainability. CRMs must see ways in which they benefit by participating with the rest of the church. And the church, whether the conference or the congregations themselves, must deepen its ownership of these church-related ministries for a healthy and long-term partnership.

One learning from our shared life together is that some congregations are taking on more of a CRM-like character while some of the CRMs are developing congregation-like aspects. A few simple examples of the first include congregations that also run child-care centers (early education) or have facilities that require staff to run events held there by groups not directly related with the congregation. Examples of the second include retirement communities that have worshipping “congregations” on site and chaplains who are truly “pastors” for those they serve daily, and schools and camps that play enormous roles in discipling young people much like congregations do.

Clearly whatever learnings we’re gaining from developing an intentional CRM relational system have only begun to surface. What seems imperative to me as I leave is that mutual benefit, healthy relationships, and overall sustainability of both CRMs and congregations will need to be central.

In addition to these three areas of learnings above, more could be said about the Partners in Mission relationships that has developed, or about how financial support policies have moved from multi-year subsidies to one-time grants oriented toward impacting change, or about other things that have emerged over the past ten years or so. Other Franconia Conference leaders will surely pick these up.

As trends among us will continue to impact the way we do church together, and as change swirls all around us, we can be assured of at least one thing. God is faithful, and God’s Spirit has been given to us to lead us into whatever lies ahead (John 16:12-15).

*Note: Phil resigned from his Franconia Conference executive role on August 31, 2007, after more than 14 years as conference executive. In additional to beginning doctoral studies in human and organizational systems and executive coaching, Phil continues to provide consulting and coaching services through Design For Ministry, including an executive leadership role with Mennonite Church USA.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Phil Bergeypbergey@franconiaconference.org

This is the second installment on trends from a presentation I made in my final State of the Conference report to the Conference Board in January. Unlike the broader macro trends in the first one (scroll down to see previous entry), these drill down more specifically into Franconia Mennonite Conference. Yet since Franconia Conference is in many ways a typical conference in Mennonite Church USA, much of what follows is not necessarily unique to us. Link to previous blog here

Trends within Franconia Mennonite Conference

1. Conference and congregational leaders are faced with significant challenges as we inevitably move from programmatic, master-plan, in-our-buildings mindsets to more organic, dynamic, missional and relational frameworks. This shift will continue, and along the way it will create excitement and adventure for some, and angst, pain and confusion for others within our congregations. Seminaries—while they are slowly preparing to address this—are not yet effectively preparing pastors to handle this shift. Perhaps skills and capacities for this shift can only be fully learned in the harness. Transparent, poised, flexible, high-EQ (emotional intelligence) leadership is essential.

I’m being very intentional with the above words that say: “as we inevitably move from….” Inevitable? Yep. The days of multiple commissions providing “program” for people has largely ended. Folks want to be personally engaged. Most people are open to transformation. Relationships are the best way for human transformation. As people are transformed, congregations and ministries are also. This creates a welcome environment in which Christ’s Gospel can thrive, even in our crazy culture. Let’s put our “church” energy into more than maintaining programs or serving on committees that are not central to a church’s unique calling.

Some of us greet necessary change with relief and open arms. Others of us resist and seek to avoid it. Change for the sake of change is silly at best and dangerous at worst. However, necessary change should be greeted with a humble confidence. Humble, so we are thoughtful about what we let go of and what we embrace. Confident, because God is already out ahead of us, calling us to help create a future following the footsteps of Jesus. We do not go alone; God’s Spirit will lead us into all truth (John 16:13).

2. The shift from traditional bishop/overseer/conference minister roles among congregations is giving way to a yet-to-be-defined equipper/broker/connector/coach role that will take some of Franconia Conference’s best energy over the next several years. Honoring our polity and ecclesiology with integrity while risking new meaningful measurements will be held in tension as we carry out our missional calling of “equipping leaders to empower others to embrace God’s mission.”
   

This one probably sounds like a bunch of garbled church-speak. Well, unpacking it takes a few paragraphs, so read on: Much of Franconia Conference’s history included bishops. Most of these men (and they were only men) served faithfully and well. Along the way the times changed, and it was deemed that “overseers” would fit better. From outside the church the distinctions between bishop and overseer may have seemed slight, but within FMC during the 1960s and 1970s it was quite significant. If bishops were granted authority to make decisions on behalf of others, the 60s began a time of “power to the people.” So as the church embodied this spirit of the times, overseers were essentially men who embodied a level of leadership maturity and were placed in situations of providing oversight for one or several congregations by using an authority based more on relationship and facilitation than on position.

However as congregations became more robust in their level of organization and program activity, these 25 or so (volunteer) overseers became understandably compromised in their efforts to provide adequate oversight since most of them were also full-time pastors. Wives and children saw less and less of these overseers as they balanced their own congregation’s challenges and responsibilities with the additional load of helping another congregation with a leadership crisis and helping another congregation to find a new pastor. They did this for a small stipend plus gas money. There will always be a role for volunteer and stipended leaders, but only in ways that are sustainable.

Seven years ago in 2000, delegates overwhelmingly took action to replace the overseer model with a team of paid conference ministers. It made sense to address some of the growing problems of congregations that were dying or were faced with a limited future. Pastoral transitions were frequent then, and the number of congregational crises per year had grown steadily due in part to the trends listed in this blog. Led by a highly experienced Jim Lapp who functioned as conference pastor, the talented and diverse conference ministry team over the next six years provided some wonderful leadership. Pastoral departures slowed way down. Congregational crises deceased noticeably. Incoming pastors were creative, more open to risk and toward change and transformation.

But these positive trends occurred during another trend well under way that began making it impossible to keep in place a large, paid conference ministry team. Congregations began investing in themselves at unprecedented rates. I’m not whining. Much of it was understandable. They saw the need to invest in buildings, in more staff, in more programs. As members of Franconia Conference congregations continued to be generous to the church, the percentage being spent within the congregation began to outstrip the percentage sent beyond to the larger church.

As financial giving to the conference has been decreasing, Franconia Conference has been experimenting with new scenarios. One was to re-organize and/or re-allocate Conference properties so they could help underwrite administrative expenses and augment the decline from congregational dollars. Another experiment was to move some Franconia Conference staff to a fee-for-service format, creating Mennonite Resources Network (MRN). Another was to unite all Conference-related ministries into a relational network of Conference Related Organizations (CROs). Note: I’ll be blogging about each of these experiments in a future post as I wrap up my work for Franconia Conference by the end of August.

3. An increasing percentage of resources are being spent within and around the congregation—at this point largely regardless of ROI (return on investment)—as congregations wrestle with new questions and possibilities due to keeping more of their money at home where members’ individual expectations are growing. Also, the growing interest in relating directly to/with the global church will continue to increase, further impacting funds that congregations have historically had available for the conference and broader church.

Somewhere it should be written that advocating for a missional church vision may be hazardous to the fiscal health of an organization. At least this seems to apply to denominations and conferences that have been using the previous paradigm for funding program. I’m noticing it applies to congregations as well.

Giving people permission (as if they needed it) to focus their attention on where God is active in their life means folks’ money will follow their heart. Does this mean organizations will need to transition to structures and strategies that allow people to connect to their passion rather than a prescribed list of programmatic things? I’m afraid so. But it seems so inefficient, doesn’t it? Maybe. Have you ever noticed from reading the New Testament that the Gospel never was very tidy?

Same can be said for the global trekking people prefer to do rather than just sending their money via a mission board. Couldn’t that money be used more effectively if not everyone was traveling? Well, it depends. It depends if that money is a catalyst that helps people re-prioritize their lives—and their earthly possessions.

4. CRO (conference related organization) ministries will continue to grow as major employers and shapers of what the public understands as the identity of being Mennonite. Schools, camps, retirement communities and other ministries frequently have deeper impact and wider reach than their affiliating congregations. Making these ministries full partners in Franconia Conference’s shared vision will continue to be a critical part of overall strategy to impact our communities.

To some readers this fourth point is refreshing. For others, it’s offensive. But the truth seems to be that more kids make public commitments to follow Jesus at camp than they do in many congregations. And Mennonite schools have turned ordinary kids into leaders for the church for decades. Of course lots of examples exist to refute all this, so the point is not whether CRO ministries are more effective than congregations. That is completely NOT the point. Rather both are needed: congregations and the ministries that supplement the congregations. Each needs the other. Thus the call to even more intentional collaboration.

5. Wealth and acculturation continue to mute traditional understandings of Anabaptism—not the least in many Franconia Conference contexts. Unlearning, reinventing, risking and focusing what it means to be Anabaptists in our context will continue to grow in importance as shaping a healthy and winsome identity and purpose will become a central theme for faithful-minded individuals and organizations alike. As we know from our research trip in 2005 to the Netherlands, having our own (Mennonite) schools and other influential ways of shaping our youth seem to be key to investing in our children and young adults and their ongoing valuing of God’s mission from an Anabaptist perspective.

It’s possible that un-learning things we already know/believe/do is the hardest work we face as Anabaptists. I for one believe there may never have been a time when the world could embrace—and persecute—more what it means to be a follower of Jesus from an Anabaptist perspective. Maybe you’re talking about non-violence during a time when modern warfare seems not only immoral but also ineffective, outrageously expensive, and counter-productive. Or maybe you’re talking about Jesus loving the whole world during this time of global awareness and interdependence for our future. Or maybe you’re talking about the sacredness of all life, or the equal value of all people, or the importance of living with integrity. Seems like Anabaptists have a few worthwhile things to say to these and every other critical matter. More than a few non-Mennonites have wondered why they are meeting so many sons and daughters of Menno going the wrong direction at this critical juncture in our—and the world’s—history.

Regarding “our” schools, there are reasons why some have chosen not to send their kids to Mennonite schools. From my perspective I wish all kids could attend Mennonite schools. My three sons have had life-changing experiences within the contexts of Mennonite edutcation. My focus here is not to cajole, persuade or harass everyone into sending their kids to Mennonite schools, but rather to encourage our schools to take their strengths to the whole constituency. Home-schoolers could use a variety of services that Mennonite schools could provide very well. Public schoolers also could benefit from some of the services. Obviously all of this would require collaboration on everyone’s part, better use of technology than we have done to date, and openness of heart and spirit all the way around. But I believe the creativity and relationships could be good for everyone involved.

For those who read this far on such a long blog post, God bless you. And for those who didn’t, blessings to you too. The next installments of my final reflections will follow in the upcoming weeks.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

Ok, here’s some good bedtime reading: Organizational trends through the eyes of an ecclesiacrat (wake me when it’s over, right?). Seriously though, the following is adapted from the first part of my final “State of the Conference” report to the Franconia Conference Board retreat that met January 29, 2007. For blog readers unaware of why this is my final report, my 14-year role as conference executive for Franconia Mennonite Conference ends this August.

Macro Trends throughout MC USA and Beyond

1. The classic 20th-century “Liberal – Conservative” continuum/dichotomy is being replaced with an “Established – Emergent” continuum/dichotomy. Diana Butler-Bass pictures the former continuum running horizontally, and the latter one running vertically. From my perspective this shift begins replacing the primary values/measures of historical theology and geography/proximity with effectiveness, relevance and organizational alignment as primary measures of affiliation.

Like each of the five trends listed here, I’m reporting what I see/hear, and not what I like or dislike. There are parts of these trends—this one for example—that frankly scare me. But I’m aware that they are trends because they are based on larger, complex patterns in our society and world. What is your response to reading this one?

2. There is broad acknowledgement that current organizational assumptions—that are still largely based on 19th-century models focused on “control” and the implied assumption of “steady state” in a changing world—cannot handle 21st-century complexity and rate of change (with its need for quicker decision-making, prioritizing, partnering, etc.) along with the 21st-century corollary values focused on influence, transformation and authenticity. Much of the church’s structures are currently based around multiple specializations more than on collaboration toward one clear purpose. Interpersonal disputes and leadership challenges that turn personal are usually based on resulting matters of misalignment or inability to achieve organizational integration.

Simply stated, our models in the church in most of the 20th century were based on earlier values and assumptions. Few leaders today would expect today’s congregation can plan—in any detailed way—20 years out. Admit it; in 1987 you didn’t see the Internet coming. Yet today’s leaders can help the congregation discern and focus the one main thing that God is calling that congregation to do and be in their context. It’s much less confusing to adapt to change when you know your place under the sun.

3. Related to number 2, there is a growing momentum for a holistic missional church vision that is fairly quickly replacing interest in the long-standing programmatic, silo-oriented structures. While this cognitive shift gains momentum, actually getting to this new place (organizationally and behaviorally) will continue to cause pain and hurt within congregations and other systems as folks sort through what to keep from the past and what to permit in the future. The best medicine is strong, honest, vulnerable, flexible, differentiated leadership and healthy processes that help the grass roots own the process along the way. Focusing on “change” (cognitive, rational) precedes but is not the same as “transition” (visceral, behavioral), which takes longer and is always harder.

If you are allergic to the word “missional,” feel free to ignore it. All is really means is: Aligning our efforts with God’s redeeming activity in the world. For a great resource on the difference between change and transition, check out William Bridges’ book Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change

4. The role of the church will continue to move from the meetinghouse to the marketplace. Inquiring Anabaptists find there is a growing (and in some circles an almost popular) appetite for Christ’s Gospel of peace and a legacy of competence for practical peacemaking in a shrinking global village. Just as vast constituencies value Catholics for their deep heritage of discernment and education, Mennonites would do well to focus on the palpable interest in Anabaptist values. Sadly, this seems to be happening at a time when more than a few Anabaptist groups are struggling over their continuing efforts to live out the notions of community, mutual aid and nonviolence at a daily level (how we run our businesses, how we drive our cars, relationships with neighbors, etc.).

At this point you either like what I’ve shared or really can’t stand the thought of reading the fifth and final trend. But from my half-time role as FMC conference executive, and my other half-time role as an organizational consultant and coach across the U.S., I’m just reporting here what I keep hearing and seeing. Does this match what you hear and see?

5. Measurements from the past centuries—including church membership, ordination, and clear organizational boundaries—will continue to become less important and relevant; while new measurements will become increasingly important in a world in which individuals and informal networks can hold businesses and even countries hostage, and unknown start-ups like Google and YouTube can go from 0 to 60 almost overnight and influence global markets. Existing measurements will still play a role to be sure, but new measurements are needed immediately, including measurements that can track with the shifting values named in these above five trends.

If you find yourself rejecting this trend, reflect on the long-standing measures of the recent past as compared with ancient ones—the modern church’s measures with those of the early church. Like I said—which I’ll repeat so this is reporting and not heresy—current measures will be useful for now, but we also need to be open to new measures (or ones that once again tap into the early church’s values). Jesus focused on discipling people, empowering leaders, and building relationships wherever he went. The church later added measures. Along the way the church changed the measures it needed. We can do it again and be faithful in reclaiming the values modeled by Jesus Christ.

In my next blog entry I’ll drill down from these macro trends to ones specifically within the Franconia Mennonite Conference. Bet some of you can’t wait…

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!

I am getting to know a wonderfully-alive Dutch man we’ll call Aert. Aert is a middle-aged school teacher who lives in the northern province of The Netherlands called Friesland.

In a recent conversation using Skype—the Internet-based technology that turns your computer into a phone to make free calls around the world—I learned something from Aert that really caught my attention. When Aert talks with Dutch friends about church and religion, he communicates in Dutch or Frisian. But—in a nuanced contrast—to discuss matters of faith and spirituality, he needs to talk in English.

It turns out that Aert has all the language he needs to discuss how the church is a religion. But in his native land which is well into a phase of history that some call post-Christendom, it turns out he needs to flip into English to discuss the more dynamic concepts of spirituality and faith. Why? These latter terms are things he has been learning about from conversations with American Mennonites and it either doesn’t translate well into his native languages, or it’s so uncomfortable forcing his native languages into this “new” territory that he can’t bring himself to do it.

I’ve been thinking about what this may mean for me in my little Mennonite world here in Pennsylvania. What impact might this learning have about how Mennonite leaders are trying to have a discussion about being missional or intercultural? We can discuss about community and peace—even when we don’t practice them very well, but try talking about missional or intercultural (or especially antiracism) and folks respond like we’re talking different languages—and perhaps we are.

All of this makes me want to learn more languages, and it also inspires me to learn how to live what I speak. I have a long way to go….

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to our RSS feed!