Approaches to Congregational Vitality

Larry Golemon
former Research Manager, The Alban Institute

While more people agree about the marks of a vital congregation, it's not clear how congregations can best use this information. Most congregations explore new areas of vitality on an ad hoc basis. Clergy are tempted to say, "well, we tried this in my last congregation, so why not here?," and for laity to say, "when I visited such and such church—or synagogue—they did this wonderful thing I think we should try."

There are two problems with this kind of piecemeal experimentation. First, what works in one setting may not work in another because of local traditions, congregational culture, and patterns of leadership. Second, some marks of vitality in one congregation can be detrimental to growth or renewal in another, because they simply do not intersect with that congregation's current strengths, context, or sense of mission. In other words, each congregation must find its own way into the literature and models of congregational vitality with care, study, and intention.

This overview summarizes the growing consensus around congregational vitality, based upon extensive congregational surveys and the advice of professional church consultants. Congregational leaders have to pick and choose carefully here—especially among the consultant literature, as it is usually tied to some program that is being marketed around an angle of success (like a certain leadership style or form or worship) that may not speak to the congregation in question.

The Primary Marks of Congregational Vitality

A number of studies of U.S. churches and synagogues have shaped the growing consensus around what makes a vital congregation. These include the U.S. Congregations surveys, FACT surveys from Hartford Seminary, Synagogue 2000 surveys, the international Natural Church Development survey, and the surveys of individual scholars (Wolfson 2006, Woolever et al 2004, Roozen 2004, Machia 2003, Schwarz 1996).

While these studies use various definitions and criteria for "vitality," generally they highlight congregations that have a vital worship experience, a high degree of member participation and social bonding, and an intentional outreach to their community. They aren't always growing appreciably, but they are not in decline. Most importantly, the marks of congregational vitality that surface in these studies are similar, and they appear in the following order, based on how many surveys identify them (up to five surveys, and up to nine consultants).

Most notably, the surveys unanimously identify meaningful worship and community ministry as the strongest marks of vitality. Congregations that are strong, according to the research data, do not just focus inward; they also share their gifts in community service and justice. This inner-outer dynamic is evident elsewhere in the list as well: supportive relationships are accompanied by sharing, evangelistic faith; and growing spirituality accompanies discipleship and gifts for ministry.

Interestingly, the survey data from evangelical and mainline churches is very similar around vital worship, practicing spirituality, and community outreach (although some mainline data shows more emphasis on social justice and civic partnerships than independent or need-driven evangelism in evangelical communities). In short, vital congregations are strong within, and known for giving without.

The second column indicates marks of vitality that have been identified by ten well-known congregational consultants—ranging from strongly evangelical to liberal (Bullard 2006, Steinke 2006, Owen-Towle 2004, McNeal 2003,Callahan 2002, Barna 2001, Foss 2000, Mead 1996, Warren 1995).

There is no unanimous or broad consensus among consultants. Nonetheless, most consultants emphasize the same marks of vitality that the research does, with at least 50 percent of consultants identifying meaningful worship, community outreach, caring relationships, growing spirituality, and empowering leadership as key to vitality.

More consultants stress the role of congregational leadership—especially staff and clergy—than the surveys do, in part because most of their programs and books are marketed to them.

Consultants differ most among themselves around how pastor-centered their models are (Barna, Bullard) compared to broad-based collaborative leadership for change (McNeal, Foss, Mead).

The consultants stress clarity of mission and purpose much more often than the surveys do. Both the leadership focus and the mission-vision focus are symptomatic, in part, of the influence of corporate leadership and organizational models upon the church consulting field.

When congregational leaders see a long list of marks of vitality like this, they usually fixate on the ones they are missing. "We lack strong evangelism," one might say, or "we need more active lay leadership." This may be a natural starting point, but it is probably not the most productive one.

Instead, many consultants today stress an "asset approach" that invites congregations to identify the marks of vitality they already have, and build from there. "We are already good at hospitality," one might say, "so how do we get more lay leadership and involvement in this?"

Building on strengths is essential to raising the vitality meter in a church or synagogue, as it not only elevates enthusiasm and commitment, but also builds future vitality on the current conditions of the congregation. In other words, it helps reshape the markers of vitality to fit the local context and culture of the congregation more readily.

There are times when a complete overhaul of the local congregation may be needed—especially in the midst of an impending collapse or after a devastating conflict—but most of the time, congregations become more vital by building on what they already do well, and stretching from there.

Identifying Windows of New Vitality for Your Congregation

Both the surveys and consultant literature identify marks of vitality that become windows of opportunity for growth and change in local congregations. Any one of the "marks"—vital worship, community outreach, or stronger fellowship—can become a year-long focus of its own. So choosing where to begin work on vitality and growth is important.

Some congregations like to start small so they can experience success and build a sense of confidence. Others like to tackle a challenge, to mobilize more people and resources in a larger campaign. Either way, it is best to consider how to build on current strengths, but in directions that engage needed areas of growth. The more member participation and new lay leadership one can create along the way, the better.

Developing more meaningful, inspiring worship involves a number of critical decisions, which in turn affect a wide range of people. Creating an inclusive, participatory process of change—that includes clergy, musicians, worship committee, and lay leadership teams—is important. The kinds of issues that must be raised, studied, and decided upon include these:

Creating a steering group of laity and clergy for worship changes often helps steer through the process—trying new things, seeking feedback, adapting and integrating effective changes over time. Overall, churches that are able to make lasting changes do so by creating a practice of trying new things regularly—say new music styles or hymns each month—in ways that create a mindset of openness, without threatening steadfast practices all at once.

Related resources: Gilbert, et al, 2007; Glick, 2006; Satterlee 2005, Saliers 2005, Malefyt/Vanderwell, 2005; Elness 2004; Kimball 2004; Schultze, 2004.

Effective community outreach falls on a spectrum from strong social-justice and advocacy ministries (on some issues—like children's poverty, equally by evangelicals and mainline), to community oriented services and meeting direct needs (through community shelters, soup kitchens, and more).

Finding forms of community service and outreach that build upon the theological traditions of the congregation are important. Is outreach meant to extend or witness to God's kingdom? Is it a vehicle for silent witness to Christian compassion and love? Is it an outlet for advancing social justice and advocacy? Key to a vital social outreach ministry is the recruitment and organization of volunteers and the kind of training and spiritual support needed to make these ministries transformative of church members' own faith.

Building caring, supportive relationships within the congregation often begins with developing intentional programs or ministries—such as Stephen's Ministers for lay pastoral care or small groups for study and discipleship. The resources available to congregations for starting new, lay-lead community building and support are numerous, and backed by a great deal of experience.

The deeper decisions around community—building, however, deal with reviewing the constraints of a given congregational culture—its hidden moirés and rules of inclusion. Most congregations, for example, do not realize that their forms of music, styles of preaching, rules of decision-making, or even ways of greeting people often feel foreign and exclusive to some members of the community around them.

Exploring the literature around multi-cultural openness and inclusion can help build this critical awareness, and raise points of change for the congregation to undertake. Generally, the more personal the strategies—to welcome people by name for who they are, and include them in helping chart future changes—the better. Remarkable advances have been made around cross-cultural friendships, radical hospitality and inclusive patterns of community discernment in recent years.

One way to expand on given vitality in a congregation is to extend its best practices throughout the congregation's life. There is a host of recent literature on "Christian practices" that explores how individual congregations deepen already existing practices so they include more and more people and dimensions of the congregation's life. This literature explores how churches develop Christian practices—from hospitality and keeping Sabbath to forms of prayer and local theological reflection.

Some congregations find their "niche" in the local family of churches by emphasizing a distinct practice or two as its trademark: "we are the church of radical hospitality" or "we are the church where everyone is a theologian." These churches develop concentric circles of practices—from worship to Sunday School to on-line discussion groups—that reinforce a larger, community practice they have identified as essential to their understanding of the faith.

Most churches, and many synagogues, can identify with at least one of the mentioned practices, and explore ways to extend its strengths through ever widening circles of involvement.

Congregations that believe vitality lies in new patterns of leadership have important decisions to make. Is the key a new, take-charge pastor that has a vision and can motivate? Is it raising up a new army of lay leaders who will take initiative in prime areas of ministry? Is it shifting the culture from a "one person " or "one group" show to a more collaborative, team approach to congregational life and leadership? The literature of church leadership is growing, but one must choose carefully in relation to the areas of growth most likely and profitable for one's setting.

The literature on "empowering, visionary leadership" is surprisingly thin beyond the more holistic models oriented toward empowering the decision-making and involvement of others. The literature suggests that strong leaders must be systemically and collaboratively minded, while being very clear about their own roles, values, and identities.

As mentioned, leader-centered (usually the pastor) models emphasize a strong, visionary leader with a clear sense of mission that can motivate others. (Bullard, Barna). Others, however, emphasize a shift away from clergy-centered models to a climate that cultivates a variety of lay leaders, who in turn are empowered by clergy and staff (Ehrich, Mead, McNeal).

Often, congregational leaders realize that their own style of leadership needs changes to meet the changing nature of their congregation or community. Becoming a more inclusive, multi-culturally aware, and empowering leader of diverse communities is one of the greatest learning curves congregational leaders can face (Brown, Mazza 2005). By developing new kinds and styles of leadership, congregations often realize they need new ways of doing governance, by changing the routines and policies of how church boards and committees operate (Leventhal, Hodkins).

Because "clarity of mission" is an important marker in the consultant literature, it is valuable to address how congregations can strengthen the sense of who they are and what they are up to. Recent literature and online conversations around the "missional church" and the "emergent church" highlight the range of issues and responses to the question of a local congregation's identity.

The missional movement stresses the importance of demarcating church identity from the larger culture—not in the mode of retreat, but in the mode of active witness and engagement. This strategy fits many "formerly mainline" congregations and denominations—who seek a new way of engaging the larger culture that no longer expects support, understanding, or reinforcement.

The "emergent church" literature stresses the importance of packaging various strands of Christianity—apostolic, Reformation, catholic spirituality—in new ways for new generations of Christians and seekers. The point is to draw from the best of Christian traditions (without denominational prejudice) and to draw newer generations more deeply into Christian practice, commitment, and spirituality that strengthens their resolve to witness and serve.

Both strands of literature raise important questions about congregational identity and mission, and with levels of theological resourcing and sophistication that can reshape a congregation's future.

In the end, congregational vitality must be locally shaped but globally informed. This reflects the kind of world we live in—diverse and multi-faceted, but increasingly wired and linked together. Congregations are free today, as never before, to borrow the best of many religious practices and resources from across the world. But to do so, they have to have the courage to reinvent themselves and the tradition they hold sacred. It is no meek or simple task.