Why Covenants in Congregations?

"Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed." - John 3:20

"Behavioral Covenants in Congregations: A Handbook for Honoring Differences" by Gil Rendle, The Alban Institute, ISBN 1-56699-209-5, $12.50 USD

In my first church, I was thrown into the fire and felt like a drowning man amid the chaoes of a complex and toxic congregation. It was difficult, and in the end I discovered impossible process for me to figure out the source of the disfunction of the congregation. Mistakenly I attributed it to about 8 individuals who had little intention of expressing their discipleship in a manner more than keeping the building open and ensuring that their own fellowship needs were met. I was stretched and abused to the point where my mental health gave out for about 6 months.

After recovering, I reflected on this passage from John 3:20. The toxicity of a congregation does not like to be named. Individuals who are supporting the congregational ill health often do not want their action or inaction named. I have learned that bringing people together to name the problems in the congregation is a very helpful way of bringing the congregational trouble out in the open. This might seem dangerous and it is, however evil that is brought into the light is ironically often much less stressful that when it is hidden.

When serving in New Westminster with a team of three churches who called themselves "leaky boats", it was clear that a reorganization of minisitry in the city was needed. One church had wisely given up on supporting their large church and had been focusing on a healthy family sized church model. The largest of the churches with a historical cathedral sized church was rife with gossip, infighting, and outright aggression from two core families backed by several older families. The main pastor there was abused on a regular basis and his right authority openly disregarded, even when backed by the board of elders. It was a really bad situation given that the congregation was in deep denial regarding their financial situation and their unwillingness to engage in any collective discernment regarding their future. Some did not trust their leadership, and others were cowardly not stepping forward to confront the antagonists in a loving manner. The third church was an ulta-liberal progressive gay affirming church (I'm no longer part of this denomination), which had a good set of leaders, who however lacked the courage to confront lots of issues.

I started a process outlined in the Alban Institute book by inviting everyone to talk about the problem behaviour in the congregations. We did not focus on solving problems, but on how we might better treat each as the church. It was a very empowering process for the non-antagonists. They got to name some of the issues they were concerned with and this was key, since a health church will quickly bring uncivil behaviour into the light. Some antagonists actually came and the process was such that they got to contribute too and get some of their beefs aired. One forgets that these folks often do have a few legitimate beefs but lack the wisdom in knowing how to air them.

Once we were done, we came up with the following covenant. It is important to make the covenant building a process in order to empower ownership and action. The covenant was blown up into a big poster and placed in key places around the church. At the eldership meetings, we reviewed how folks were doing. As expected the antagonists did not live up to the covenant. This allowed the leadership and others a way of challenging their behaviour. "At our church we have covenanted to do these things.". It also brought into the light spiritually toxic individiuals. I recall one woman saying, "I just don't have time to pray for this congregation." What was valuable in the admission was for others to understand that she was not in the community to bless others, but to exploit them for her social needs. It helped the disciples understand what they were dealing with. It brought this stuff into the light and helped to understand what some people were thinking.

To serve God's plans God makes covenants. God covenanted with Noah saying there would never be another great flood. A covenant was made with the Jews to make them God's chosen people. And through Christ, God expanded that covenant to include us as adopted children.

As a community we have been using the New Church Development (NCD) model. One key sign of healthy church growth is "Loving Relationships". This is a good goal because Christ commands us to "love one another, as he has loved us."

The scary aspect of this process is that it precipritated a crisis. It eventually brought the fight out into the open because it because more difficult for conspiracies to be kept in the dark. This might scare clergy, however it has been my limited experience that an open war is more painful, but less stressful than the status quo. It is often the unknown which causes us great stress. Sometimes the covenant leads to repentance and open dialogue if the antagonists are well intentioned dragons. I recall one conversation with a man who did not like our long term ministry plan. I replied "You may not like it, but you don't even have a plan. Make one up and we'll talk about it." That got him talking. Getting people talking face to face in a relatively safe manner can lead to a great breakthrough. Whether it is reconciliation or an open battle, at least "the cards are on the table." In the case of the New Westminister congregation, a divorce occurred. The progressives with their liberal vision joined the sister church and the antagonists took over the existing congregation. The existing pastor lost his job, although he was emotionall exhausted but soon found a new place to serve in the church. I was actually optimistic for the antagonist led church, since at a number of discussion meetings, I noticed more and more people comfortably acknowledging problems.

Amongst one of the main problems the antagonist lead church had was a deficit of dicipleship spirit. At one point during the two year process, we had decided to vote to close the large cathedral church with the antagonists, due to its extremely high maintenance costs and a neglected infastructure. I lead a meeting where people from the congregation could air their concerns. Understandably lots of very angry people came, which was good. It meant they were concerned and I saw goodness in that. I began by acknowledging their anger and their concern for their church, however then I named the elephant in the room. They had a financial deficit, which was not the main problem. They had a volunteer deficity, which was not the main problem. They had an infastructure deficit, which was not the main problem. They had a spiritual deficit, which was killing their church and contributing to their problems. About 10 passionate old leaders grasped the problem. Once the liberal-traditioanist split was solved by the liberals leaving, these older elders perhaps could challenge the antagonists who were their friends. It was my hope that good things would happen for them, not just because of my love for them, but because I agreed with their traditionalism.

Some might not think this was a victory, however the kind of stress of "clearing the air" is far less chaotic and healthy than stress which comes from secrecy and chaoes. It can even be invigorating to face the nasty meeting which will lead to some sort of new outcome and to die of a thousand backstabs. What I like most about this process is that it brings in the lesser players in the Church. These are the folks who actually are out of the loop and who really think things are going well if the Sunday service is happening and if the groups are continuing. Yes, they might get hints that something is wrong, but they are just not aware. A behavioral covenant helps them to see what is going on and if a crisis is evoked, they can be drawn in with their insights. They also are the folks who often can save a pastors bacon when it comes to a vote on whether to fire the pastor or kick the antagonists out of the church. Often these voices at the firing meeting can help to demonstrate to denominational officials that there is a core group of people who can in a calm manner name the antagonists as the problem. Lastly, these covenants are a shield. They give a clear and mature example of how a pastor is attempting to build up the congregations ability to love. It is a tangable process which mature people will generally appreciate. There is no down side to this process if it is implimented in a mutual and community involved manner. Don't write one up on the weekend and post it on the wall. That will not work. You want to drawn people into empower them to name the antagonism and challenge it. A congregation which knows how to do this will deal with a new antagonist in about two week, long before the pastor has even heard of the problem. That is the ultimate goal, a congregation which can identify, name, and bring evil into the light. As pastors, we need to foster such holiness in our congregations so antagonism in others and even in our sinful selves does not have a place to grown.