Three Phases of Church Revitalization: Phase Two
A three-part series on what to expect and how to lead through revitalization.
In a previous post, I introduced the concept of church revitalization, I told a little of my own background and experience, and I described what I believe is a common framework for understanding what is typical for the first season or phase one of a church revitalization work. I recommend that the reader begin there.
In this post, I will elaborate on what I believe is a common framework for understanding and for leading a church through the season that will almost inevitably follow the first. This second phase is the season in which church leaders help a local church to dismantle their unhealthy structures and practices and also help them replace such things with something new and healthier. For the longterm health of a local church, it is imperative that the church raze those features of church-life that produced failing health and establish (or re-establish) healthy structures and practices.
Phase Two: Razing and Building
During this second phase, you are likely to hear the common questions shift from argumentative and antagonistic toward inquisitive. Church members stop asking, “Pastor, why don’t you…?” or “Pastor, why do you…?” And they start asking, “Pastor, what do you mean…?” or “Pastor, what would that look like here?”
In my experience, most church members generally stopped arguing with me about what should be or shouldn’t be done around my fifth year as senior pastor. Of course, this is not to say that I don’t experience some criticism anymore. It is true, however, that the criticism today is not usually aimed at the foundation of our church polity or ministry philosophy.
Around the five year mark, some church members started asking me how we might implement the sorts of theological and practical changes I was advocating. In some cases, they even advocated for change themselves. With this shift, comes the responsibility to lead in a new way.
The time had come to begin taking action steps toward substantial change. Leading the church well during phase two requires an honest assessment and some hard work on the level of the foundation. In our case, and in many cases I’ve heard from others, this means establishing or re-establishing the church documents and resetting the church’s structure and function atop a sure footing.
This means addressing the three C’s of a local church - the Confession, the Constitution, and the membership Covenant. These three documents set the foundation of what a church believes, how the church functions, and how the members relate to one another. The goal is not merely to change the documents, but to publicly state what is true and to live accordingly.
Confession of Faith
A church’s confession of faith makes explicit the doctrines and beliefs that every member can expect to learn, that every leader is expected to teach, and that will set the boundaries for what is right and good for this particular church. Every Christian and church can (and should!) claim the Bible as the ultimate authority, but when church members disagree about how to interpret the Bible (for example, on baptism, on pastoral qualifications, or on who can rightly partake of the Lord’s Supper) the confession of faith gives everyone an authoritative answer to those questions as understood by this specific church.
The good news is that most churches (especially older ones) probably already have a good confession of faith. You probably won’t have to rewrite it, but you will have to dust it off and teach it… a lot.
If you don’t have a stated confession of faith, then I recommend that churches adopt one that reflects the long-held beliefs of Christians who have gone before. Every denomination has at least a few historic confessions to choose from, and the benefits of using one of these are many. Your own pastoral leadership will gain credibility when you have the great-grandparents of your current church members on your side.
I also recommend that churches keep their confession of faith free from those doctrines that are not essential to Christianity or essential to maintaining basic unity among a specific church. Al Mohler wasn’t the first person to write on Theological Triage, but his article is quite helpful on this point.
Constitution
A church’s constitution makes explicit the structure of how authority is delegated throughout the various functions of the church. Who decides whether or not to receive a new member? Who decides what line items make it into the budget? Who decides what programs a church will employ? And how will all of these decision be made? The answers to questions like this should be explicit in the church constitution.
If your church is older, then your constitution is likely to be a hodgepodge of various amendments and adjustments from years gone by. It may even be that your present constitution is self-contradictory (and this is more common than one might imagine). You will have to assess whether you need to modify what you’ve already got or to start with something completely new.
I recommend that a constitution be detailed enough to avoid confusion, but also general enough to allow for flexibility and practical leadership. A cumbersome and detailed constitution will usually become an obstacle and then a neglected artifact. But no one will care more about the constitution than those looking for definitive parameters to resolve a conflict when it arises. Clarity will help, but confusion will exacerbate conflict.
You may want to consult a lawyer in order to ensure that your church meets the legal requirements of your state. You will almost certainly benefit from borrowing at least a few constitutions from other churches who share your understanding of ecclesiology and missiology. Ask a pastor you respect to share his own church constitution with you (or a few of them), and you might be surprised by how much you can borrow from others.
Membership Covenant
A membership covenant makes explicit what all members are agreeing to do in relationship with one another. It is a summary of the responsibilities church members are committing to take on as participants in the church. Of course, good membership covenants simply reflect the biblical commands for Christian living as taught by Christ and the Apostles in the New Testament.
For congregational churches, a membership covenant is essential to our lives together. Historically, Puritans invented this practice in sixteenth-century England, and their descendants (i.e., Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Baptists) continued it (both in England and America). Like confessions of faith, there are good historic membership covenants for most Protestant denominations today.
If your church is older, then you are likely to find a membership covenant among the historic documents of your church. In my own context (a Baptist church, founded in 1919), the nearly ubiquitous Baptist church covenant was J. Newton Brown’s (published in 1833). It is wonderful (with the exception of just a couple of statements), and again the historic use of such a document will bolster everyone’s confidence that what you’re leading them toward is a recovery of the old ways and not a revolution.
Whether you are creating your church covenant for the first time or reviving an old one, it is important that every church member knows what is expected of him or her. It is also important that everyone knows what they can and should expect from one another. And consistently referencing and applying the church covenant in public and private will help a pastor invite the whole church to bear the burden of caring for souls together.
Razing and Building
This phase of church revitalization will likely feel exhilarating, at least for those who know how significant it is to establish or re-establish a church’s foundational documents and practices. You may or may not be making obvious changes that are noticeable to the inattentive church member or casual visitor, but a lot is happening. If we were renovating a house, this phase would be akin to the foundation and frame work. You’re pouring new concrete, replacing faulty piers, pulling out rotting wood and installing quality beams and studs that will last.
In my own experience, this phase lasted about a year. I used existing structures of our church polity to address these three foundational areas - confession, constitution, and covenant. In our case, the confession and covenant were already pretty good. We had already been referencing and using these documents in various ways, and we were able to emphasize their importance and function all the more (in the membership process, small group studies, during members’ meetings, and when we observe the Lord’s Supper).
Our constitution was the hodgepodge I mentioned above, and it was indeed self-contradictory. It was also representative of a committee-led church polity, which we wanted to change. Desiring to move toward elder-led congregationalism, we borrowed from other churches (far and near, young and old) to create our own new constitution.
Three very significant moments that serve as climactic points of this second phase were voting to reject our old constitution and to affirm our new one (June of 2020), voting out of membership all long-time non-attending members (July of 2020), and voting to affirm three lay-elders as overseers/pastors beside me (August of 2020).
Again, these acts did not change anything at all about the weekly ministries of our church. However, these were huge moments that changed the fundamental reality of who we were as a church.
And these fundamental changes set the groundwork for phase three.