Dan Hotchkiss

Years ago a bright Yale student asked me how I would describe the difference between a church and any other charitable group. I gave the sort of answer most of us might give: I emphasized the church’s unique life-transforming mission and its special responsibility to treasure and transmit precious traditions across generations.It was a good answer–but today I am afraid I’d have to add that of all nonprofits, congregations as a group are the most cautious and least willing to accept risk in order to fulfill their mission.

Read more of The Stewardship of Risk.

To succeed, a congregation needs a lot of people to show up regularly, give generously, and work hard. Why do they do it? It’s a pressing question for religious leaders, especially in communities where religious participation is no longer a strong norm, or where paid work levies an increasing tax on every household’s time. Leaders need an answer to the question, “Why do we do what we do?”

This question stands at the center of theology and economics, which give different kinds of answers. Theology, once called the queen of the sciences, shapes the education of the clergy. Economics (a.k.a. the dismal science) influences everybody else, making it difficult sometimes for congregation leaders to understand each other when they think about motivating people.

Read more of Why We Do What We Do.

In support of her work with the Association of Theological Schools, Ginny Thornburgh, Director of the Religion and Disability Program of the National Organization on Disability, requested from Ian Evison and Dan Hotchkiss of the Alban Institute a review of information on the Internet about the efforts of theological schools to educate their students about ministry to and with people with disabilities.

According to Alban and Hotchkiss, “We found variety of such efforts at institutions across the American religious spectrum. While most of what happens at theological schools is now recorded on the World Wide Web, we make no claim that the survey is comprehensive.”

Read “Disability and Theological Education.”

Most congregations engage in some form of social ministry—or believe they should. Some call it missions, others outreach, social action, or benevolence. From relatively modest actions like collecting canned goods for the local food bank to major projects like building a house in partnership with Habitat for Humanity, the collective contribution of churches, mosques, and synagogues to the welfare of the needy is enormous. By contributing, they set an example of generosity and faithful stewardship.

But why do they do it? If the question seems impertinent, let me rephrase it: Why, exactly, should a congregation feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, or free the oppressed? For Christians, I have almost answered my own question: in these words Jesus taught that service to “the least of these” was necessary for salvation. He was not saying anything especially original. For Jews, charity (tzedakah) is a basic part of being a good person. In these traditions, as in others, it is pretty clear that individuals ought to help others.

But why congregations? When other social agencies exist to help the needy, won’t they usually have more expertise and skill? Why not simply encourage members to give time and money to the best nonprofits in each field of service?

Read more of What is the Mission of “Missions”?

The most frequent mistake clergy search committees make is to focus too much on the perceived weaknesses of the previous clergyperson. If the predecessor was personable but poorly educated, the search committee scours the world for a Ph.D. and takes social skills for granted–after all, doesn’t every minister have them? If the last minister was an active organizational leader but an indifferent preacher, the next will spend most of the work week writing sermons and assume the laity will run the church. The trouble with this approach is that congregations are organized around the strengths of previous clergy more than their weaknesses.

Read more about Choosing Your Next Clergy Leader.

When I speak at seminaries about leadership and management in congregations, professors usually need to be somewhere else, and students tend to doze. To wake them up, I mention a favorite topic, “ministerial authority.” Seminarians love to talk about the potent symbolism of the clergy role, and to picture people looking up at them projecting issues properly belonging to their parents. They reflect gravely on the special powers and obligations that the hands of ordination will load onto their heads.

On the whole this kind of talk is harmless; at best it gets some silly notions out of the way early. Seminary is the last occasion most students will have to fret about the perils of excessive clergy power. After graduation, those who take congregational positions mostly worry about how they are doing and all the things that measure that: praise, thanks, headcount, lack of controversy, money.

Read more of “Relocating the Clergy Ego.“

Few projects excite and galvanize a congregation more than a new building or a major renovation. People complain about construction delays, capital campaigns, and the general din and dust, but their blood pumps, their wallets loosen, and their enthusiasm rises. Lyle Schaller went so far as to generalize that congregations that build capital are happier than those that spend it. Most congregations in the midst of a construction project illustrate his point: as they convert their members’ cash into real estate, their spirits rise, peaking at the dedication service.

But what happens then? Usually there is a period of euphoria. Occasionally a congregation goes on from strength to strength without a pause. More often, though, there is a letdown, a period of slump in finances, in program, in morale: the post-construction blues.

Read more about The Post-Construction Blues.

Most congregations engage in social ministry to some degree, and most feel that their efforts could be better. But planning for ministries that seek to serve or influence the world beyond the sanctuary can be challenging. Because the world’s needs are so large and complicated, outreach efforts are especially vulnerable to criticism. How, then, to have a positive, constructive conversation?

One way to begin is to pose good questions and invite people to discuss them while a planning team takes notes. Make it clear that the purpose is not to critique your current ministries or to make decisions about the future. Decisions can wait for another time. At the outset you want to get people thinking more creatively about the basic reasons for the congregation’s community-outreach ministries.

Read more about Planning for Community Ministry

Q: I am on the personnel committee of my church.We expect to fill two staff positions soon, and wonder what our policy should be about accepting applications from members of the congregation.

A: When hiring staff, congregation leaders often ask this question. Hiring members has both advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are that members are apt to be familiar with the congregation, committed to its mission, and used to working hard without pay. The drawbacks are that a former lay leader may have difficulty accepting supervision, and a minister or board that tries to fire a member may wind up in hot soup with the member’s friends and family.

Read more of Is it Wise to Hire Members?

Most board members know micromanaging is bad. Boards criticize themselves all the time for long meetings, trivial agenda items, and an inability to delegate: “We should be making policy, not managing the operation.” Staff and volunteers chafe at the need to bring projects back to the board at each point along the way. A seemingly innocuous report can be a red flag in the board’s face, provoking it to meddle.

Beyond self-criticism, though, few boards know how to escape from the temptation to spend all their time on trivialities. John Carver, a consultant whose “Policy Governance” system has transformed many non-profit and public boards, offers one possible model. But does it fit the needs of churches and synagogues? I consider this question on an article in Congregations (subscribe!) that is on the Alban Institute website:

Read more about John Carver and congregations