Christian behavior recipe

As I think about what a church should do with its resources, I started wondering about the amount of resources that would ideally be spent on the practice of religion compared to living the religion.

My assumption is that practicing religion is a means to live the religion. You go to church on Sunday not for the exclusively to worship God but to equip or fortify yourself to live out the tenants of your faith. God doesn’t need to be worshipped, we need to worship God to do what is right, just and compassionate.

How would this concept be implemented in the activity of a church? I guess I think too many resources can be allocated for practicing religion (particularly in the time and energy of many in the upper heirarchies) and not providing opportunities to live the faith.  Helping the least of our brothers, making peacemakers (they are blessed) encouraging all to give up their things and follow their faith-isn’t that what a church should do?

The church should provide opportunities to enrich one’s faith but the enrichment should lead to action, lifestyle changes and good deeds.  In that the fruition of faith development is action, should not the a sizable portion of the life of the parish be directed to providing opportunities of charity?  Also, if these charitable acts might be considered as successfully developing the faith of the members, shouldn’t the implicit intent of all other activities be getting to the point where one does good deeds with compassion?

I guess my fear is that churches get overly caught up in the ritutals of the faith and lose sight of why they do the rituals in the first place.  There is a new set of rules being put forth (or I guess more stringently enforced is more accurate) that would seem to reflect that a major priority for the larger church is concentrate on the rituals of faith rather than living the faith.

About Face…about Facebook

I always thought these social networking sites were a bunch of crap.  It would be just one more thing in my life where I get it started, quickly lose interest and eventually leave behind a pile of idle bytes serving no purpose.  Recently, a company was giving out a free sample on the condition you signed up to be there friend on Facebook.  I took the bait and signed up for Facebook account.

 I am still a rookie and have not resolved whether this tool has any true value or if it too will become a pile of discarded bytes collecting vitural dust on some computer server somewhere.  However, I have noticed it suits my personality well.  There are people who I’ve exchanged messages with that I haven’t talked in 25 years.  I am ‘friends’ with people I really don’t know.

 There are others who I may have seen one or twice in the last three years but have never spoken with and now we are officially friends.  I am left wondering if this virtual friendship will spill over into the real world.  Now that our friendship is officially recorded on the Facebook database will we converse the next time we are face to face or do virtual friendships remain just that.

 

I even went out on the limb yesterday and created a Holy Name of Jesus group on Facebook.  I am not altogether certain how to leverage the group yet, but there are already three members (YIPEE).  In theory, I suppose it could be used as yet another way to keep everyone informed and to build social relationships between members (which is largely what we need to do anyway from my perspective). 

 So I am throwing it out to my posse out there – join up.  Throw your hat in the social networking ring and be a happening dude or dudette.  If you do, make sure you add me as a friend as they are altogether too scarce virtually and otherwise in my quarters.

Belt tightening

Contributions at the parish have nose-dived.  Many expected there would be an eventual decline but the severity and suddenness of the drop caught us a little off guard.  The situation does force a rethinking of what is essential to a parish and what isn’t.  It also forces a discussion on what the needs of parish are at this point in time.

 

So we have been asked to put our ministry activity on a grid.  On one axis of the grid is the need of the ministry for the parish and on the other is the quality of that ministry.  A final element to the evaluation is to assign how much each ministry costs.  The goal is to fund or provide resources to the activities with the highest need and eliminate those that are costly and are needed as much.

 

It seems easy enough but the process largely depends on perceptions and there is an element of turf protection as well.  Ideally, we will have a constructive dialogue and assess how we can become an even more efficient parish.

 

In addition to this exercise, we are also doing what most other companies are doing, freezing pay, looking at potential staff reductions, decreasing benefits, and freezing expenses as much as possible.  The problem we may face is that we will come to realize that what we are providing is needed more now than it has been for a few years, and by cutting, we won’t be able to help those who need it.

 

There has been some discussion on how we might approach both assessing and maximizing our potential income but realize in doing to we may come across as being oblivious or unsympathetic to the difficult financial realities confronting our donors.  

 

Of dire concern to me is what is down the road.  If our giving decreases by 8% this year from last year, will it take four years to get back to where we were last year?  Typically income has increased by a little less than 2% per year and so assuming economic things get righted, will people start giving dramatically more (back to their ’07 amounts) or will they start the 2%?

 

In the end I think we are going to have to fundamentally rethink the way we do business around here.  I’ll keep you updated if I’m still employed.

Backseat Homilist

How many of you have complained about a homily?  Okay, has anyone not complained about a homily?  Too long, too boring, it had no point, it had too many points, it was too abstract, it didn’t reflect the readings, it only reflected the readings  – yah, there’s plenty of back seat homilists out there.  My question is have you every tried it?  I hope I don’t come across at trying to be self-righteous because I really haven’t tried preparing my own homily and have been critical of homilies in general.  So I am throwing it out there.  Read the readings here:

http://www.usccb.org/nab/101208.shtml

Post your insights/homily in the comments section.  I think having a background in theology would help in preparing a good homily, but I don’t think it’s required by any means.  If a person is sufficiently ambitious you could certainly unearth context on the readings without too much trouble.

I wonder if our expectation to have a meaningful message given to us each and every Sunday might potentially be a troubling sign.  Has the church become something like a dry cleaner where we bring our dirty souls and in exchange for making a financial contribution expect the priest to clean us up without making a personal contribution to the process? 

I would estimate that 65% of registered parishioners do not attend Holy Name on any given weekend.  Some are undoubtedly travelling, but there has got to be a bunch of people who assess whether attending Mass is a good investment of their time or not and the majority conclude it’s not a good investment.   I suspect that many of those people who don’t attend regularly would say they don’t get anything out of it.   Why should they get dressed up and make the trip to church if they leave no different then when they came?

For those who do attend regularly, what would you tell them you get out of it?  Are you a somewhat different person leaving the parking lot?  How would you describe the difference without being overly abstract (Would saying something like, ‘I have a renewed sense of faith’ mean much to someone else?)?

I would contend that those who get the most out of coming to mass come without expectations that someone else is going to bring about any sort of transformation.  They know that they must invest themselves to experience a sense of conversion.  Those who come expecting a drying cleaning of their souls by what others do, don’t come as often because they probably feel any different when they leave. 

So as our parish endeavors to increase mass attendance, what would you recommend we do?  Make mass more exciting or meaningful or pertinent to their lives?  Better music? refreshments? Guest speakers?  What do you think it will take to get people to come more regularly?

Sirens

 

I have been hearing a lot of sirens lately (the police car variety, not the Odysseus type…although now that I think about I hear my share of those too).  I don’t know what the deal is whether people are more accident prone all of a sudden or maybe I never didn’t pay attention as much before.

 

I do tend to listen to the sirens closely though.  It’s an occupational hazard when you live across the street from where you work.  I always hope, the sirens don’t stop at the church.  I have really, really hoping they wouldn’t stop because we have been in a prolonged process to install an automated external defibrillator (AED).  The AED is a devise that pretty much anyone can use to save someone who is having a heart attack.  So I have been worried that someone would have a heart attack before we got the unit and their demise would be because it took so long to get the AED.

 

Fortunately, we have the AED now and so if there is a heart attack at the parish, we can assist the victim until help arrives.  I don’t know that it will cure my desire for sirens to go past the church, but at least we got the heart covered.

 

I started disliking sirens intensely after I started dwelling on what the reason might be for their speedy trip.  They don’t go to happy places.  There is someone in a rough spot most of the time.  It’s not something pleasant to think about the accident or illness or misfortune that exists at the destination.  I have, however, recently found a tonic for the bad feeling I get when I think about where a siren is going.  I say a prayer for whoever they are going to help. 

 I’d invite you to give it a try – it’s free – so if you hear a siren – say a prayer. 

In this business…

I heard someone recently use the phrase, “in this business,” and it got me thinking.  The phrase is part of a family of clichés wherein the author tries to explain why something he or she is an expert on is different than other realms of business or life.

The most frequent occurrence seems to be with people in the movies and TV.  “In this business, you either give the people something they like and will pay for or you end up in the gutter.”  Dang – thanks for pointing that out.  I guess I never knew that’s the way Hollywood works and it’s way different than the rest of the commercial world. 

One the most annoying examples I recall was when Joe Sensor was doing color commentary for the Vikings.  Listening to the Vikings on radio is tough to begin with but when he would preface nearly every comment he uttered with, “In this league…” and follow it with something like, “you either execute or you don’t get things done.” Wow – brilliant – never would have guessed that in the NFL you have to execute.

I suppose there is an appropriate use of phrases of this sort but it’s difficult to use it without sounding condescending.   I was trying to imagine an appropriate use of the phrase that would be appropriate, relatively insightful, and in my business.

Some potential phrases might include:

In this business, you really need to focus on mission, vision, and identity – Not sure this is distinctly different than selling pancakes or Cheerios but it might be).

In the church racket, you either got to build relationships or forget about it.  -Again probably applies to many other service organizations but does distinguish us to some extent.

If you want to survive doing God’s business, you really need to focus on improving the morality of everyone’s behavior or you’re wasting their time and money. -Too harsh?  -Accurate?

I tell you what, in my numerous years in the faith building game, one thing you must really focus is on adding value with contributed resources, or those contributions will disappear.  -Probably too much left unsaid but accurate nevertheless.

Listen, my friend, if you only focus on one thing in this gig, don’t be a hypocrite. – Definitely not distinguishing but probably valuable.

Anyway, how about it – can you come up with a statement from your perspective that would differentiate the church ‘business’ from others?

Passed (past) Due Date

Minnesota recently celebrated its 150th birthday.  Didn’t seem to be much fanfare about the event – maybe there’s more on the way, though.  Seems to me Iowa changed their license plates for the occasion and seemed to work it into their marketing identity for quite awhile.   So why does Iowa play up their anniversary and for Minnesota (at least to this point) it seems like a relatively minor event.

I am not sure what the true value of marking milestones in the life or an organization or individual are.  I once calculated the number of days I lived on earth thinking that your 15,000 or 20,000 day is a lot cooler than your 52nd birthday.  I put an important date on my calendar but no longer remember the day or even my job at the time and so I doubt it’s still there.

As the administrator of a very old parish (which is part of a very, very old Church), I wonder what is appropriate and also exactly when do you start counting.  I can verify Holy Name of Jesus was incorporated in the state of Minnesota on 7/11/1878 – twenty years and two months after Minnesota was founded.  However, the written history of the parish identifies priests celebrating mass in the area in 1856.  So when does our history start?  Whatever date you choose, how should a parish celebrate a milestone like 125 or 150 years?

It seems like every organization places a little different importance on milestones.  I suspect that the milestones probably mean more to organizations where there is greater longevity in the membership and a greater sense of history and its importance.  It might also have something to do with the speed of change.  If we are in a constant change of flux, the past would become seemingly less important more quickly (if that makes any sense).

At any rate, we don’t seem to do much here to honor the past and it wouldn’t appear anyone is too concerned with marking milestones.  I am not sure what the consequences of this sort of behavior will be but it seems to convey a transient approach rather than a long-term (or even eternal) which is probably what you would want in a parish.

Fishing for answers

The past weekend I was one of the desperate fisher people who elected to sacrifice comfort for the opportunity to trick a fish into biting something that looked edible but wasn’t.

It started out raining and cool and got significantly worse by the end of the day.  At times I thought I was snowmobiling as we moved from place to place across the lake.  Is it really worth it, I kept asking myself.  Surely, there would be better days to fish especially considering that many thought the water would not be warm enough to have fish biting in the first place.

I did learn few things during the day.  My rain jacket is far from water proof.  It slowed down the rain but I was soaked through four layers of clothing on three different fishing shifts.  I learned that fish don’t really bit if the temperature of the water is in the high forties – at least not on Lake Ida.  I learned, once again,  that to catch fish, you must think like a fish. 

In the end I caught eight fish.  My two fishing companions caught one collectively.  Of course the debate for the day and the night was whether fishing is based on luck or skill.  My mates naturally were attributing my relative success to circumstantial factors and luck.  I basically said countered with saying something like a four to two score could be explaining by random factors, buy me catching fish at the rate of 16 to 1, indicates skill was very clearly the factor at play.

Per usual, I wondered if there were parallels in other arenas of life.  One thing that has been on my mind lately is attending church services.  From my perspective, it might be akin to reading about fishing and conscientiously fishing versus throwing a line in the water and hoping fortune favors us.  Is the person who makes the decision to attend church regularly better equipped to make decisions that will benefit society in the long run (i.e. morally sound decisions) then someone who doesn’t?

Attendance at services is down and the surveys done indicate that it is getting worse.  So how do you convince someone to attend more often?  They must obviously not place a value on attending and so the question is what value does attending have and how would you communicate this to others?  Further, you would probably have to make the case in mostly non-religious terms in that if the non-attenders had a strong faith relationship, they would likely already be attending.

From a resource allocation point of view, I wonder about the non-attendance issue relative to the amount of our resources we invest.  The parish invests a large amount in the school and we do so, in theory, to best equip our youth to practice and carry on our faith.  At the spring concert last week, I looked at the faces and started wondering who some of these people are and why don’t I ever see them at weekend masses.  The parish is investing heavily into the faith development of their children but if the parents don’t value practicing the faith, are we wasting the investment? The school is important in faith development but I would say the parents are going to have greater impact then the school will likely have. So are we wasting our investment if a good percentage of the families are closer to seeing our school as a cheap private school rather than an additional way to have their children grow up morally equipped because they practice their faith?

I don’t want to pick on school parents because non-attendance is prevalent among other parish groups as well.  Children and adults participate in various activities but do not attend and many neither participate in activities or attend mass.

I don’t want to come across at being judgmental of people who don’t attend mass, but we as a church must come to terms with either expressing the value and importance of attending mass, or we need to be prepared for an increasingly casual attitude by our members with respect to adhering to the faith. 

Do you attend mass regularly why?  If you don’t why don’t you go more often?  What is the value of attending mass in your life?  Does it prepare you to deal with decision-making in your life?  Do you think the people that attend mass are better for having done so?  In what ways?  Do you think our parish would be better if more people attended regularly?  What would you do or say to get more to come?

Are there parallels between an increasingly casual attitude toward practicing one’s faith and a decision-making by individuals and society that emphasizes the immediate and personal well-being over the long-term good for the greatest number? 

 

Time…

How would your describe time and your relationship with it?  Think about it, what is time and maybe the more important question for all of us is what should our understanding of time be?

I woke up at roughly 3:45 this morning and was in some sort of recurring half asleep/half awake cycle with the same thought/dream blending together.  I don’t remember all the particulars but when I was more awake then asleep, the cliché, ‘time doesn’t not stand still,’ was the thought I had. 

I started thinking about references to time as in, time goes by, time races by, time stands still, time is on your side.  From there I wondered into thinking about how we track time with respect to clocks and calendars and birthdays and stages of life.  This lead to thinking about trying to comprehend eternity relative to a day or hour.  At this point, I fell back to sleep for a couple of hours.

When I woke up I was thinking about time in relationship to economics and salvation.  How does our treatment of our available time reflect our values?  Does our treatment of time reflect an appropriate perspective?  You can’t really treat every day as if it’s your last day on earth but you can’t go through life thinking you will live forever.

From a professional point of view, I think some of the art of the ministry of administration is being able to balance the spectrum of time perception.  On the one hand, you need to keep the lights on and the doors open at the parish but on the other hand, you have to comprehend that decisions can have eternal consequences.  You want to provide opportunities for people to improve their lives and assure the eternal wellbeing of their soul but you also must spend time thinking about some short-term, less meaningful aspects of parish business like getting rid of dandelions.

On a personal level, I like to use Bill Murray’s character in, “Ground Hog Day,” as a model for a healthy perspective on time.  The movie is about a guy that gets stuck living the same day over and over.  He evolves in his understanding of time and life as he continues to live the same day over and over.  Eventually he comes to understand that each day is an opportunity to grow and to build and create relationships and to love.  His metamorphosis to this understanding highlights some unhealthy perceptions of our time.

I am not sure exactly what the point in all this is but I guess I would recommend that we all think about the eternal in the context of a day or a week and reconcile our behavior in light of these two perspectives.  Does our lifestyle today reflect an understanding of the eternal life of our soul?  Do we really believe in eternity our is that too abstract to impact our lifestyle?  Even if you have trouble with eternity, is does your lifestyle reflect an understanding of an improved self/world in five, 10, or 15 years?  What do you/we need to change in our behavior to reflect a longer-term approach?

 

Thank you very little or much

A church really depends on the goodwill, trust, and some would argue guilt as the means to stay afloat.  No one is forced to give their money and so to keep the doors open; donors must have faith and then trust that their contribution is being used to do good things.

Many non-profits are in a similar situation although they typically don’t play the guilt card (not that we would ever do this) wherein members are reminded that there is an ample moral foundation to share what you have with those in need.  Non-church, non-profits typically have a more sophisticated approach to cultivating donors and a broader array of ways on how they can recognize donors. 

Church’s might put a plaque or have minor ways of recognizing donors, but most typically don’t issue annual reports categorizing donors by amount given and recognizing their largest donors.  These activities might be effective for non-profits but the perception is that they are inappropriate for churches.  So my question is what is appropriate for churches?

How should or maybe should parishes recognize the people who contribute?  Some would clearly say no that giving to a church is a response to faith and giving is and should be its own reward.  Recognizing donors is potentially tainting the motivation most have when they give and publicizing donors or donations is inappropriate.

On the other side of the coin, many donors are subjected to sophisticated cultivation techniques by other non-profits and presumably respond to these techniques which may decrease their giving to the church.  If their college or high school president asks them to go out to lunch and tells them about the grand vision they have and that their name will appear here or there.  Doesn’t this seem more motivating than a form letter from the pastor and a listing of your contributions for tax purposes?

Should churches do anything to make their case?  Ideally, the people running the church believe in what they are doing and should believe that if they did more of it the world would be a better place.  So shouldn’t church leaders be motivated to get as many contributions as possible to do as much good as possible?  Shouldn’t we be cultivating people who have the potential to further our mission and vision?

Our parish decided to have several events to give supporters a chance to meet our new pastor and hear him talk about what he sees as the potential vision for the church.  If you were going to start having these meetings, who would you start meeting with first?  We decided to sort people by the amount they contribute and this has caused some hard feelings.  I don’t know what the answer is but I guess I think we are doing the right thing.

I also think it’s important to give all parishioners the same opportunity however and so it’s a matter of who goes when.  Above all we want to make sure we are supportable (people will be motivated to support what we do) and that by one means or another we have the resources to continue the extremely valuable work we are doing.