After several months of study and discussion, the Long Range Planning Committee presented its report and central recommendation at a congregational meeting.

At Grace Church it read, "...and, therefore, we recommend that we relocate our meeting place to a larger site at a more attractive location and construct new physical facilities for ministry in the 21st century." Two hours later, the vote revealed 81 in favor of relocation and 173 opposed.

At Hope Church it read, "...and, therefore, we have concluded we are faced with two choices. One is to continue to gather for the corporate worship of God in this building and watch our numbers grow smaller and our members grow older in age. The second is to relocate to a larger site at a better location." Ninety minutes later, the motion to relocate was adopted by a 142-to-41 margin.

What were the messages conveyed by these two recommendations? The first, at Grace Church, suggested the members could choose between two alternatives: relocate the meeting place to a new site or continue to worship at the same familiar place.

At Hope Church, the message asked the members to choose between gradual change--a shrinking and aging of the congregation--or radical change. One interpretation could be to choose between aging and becoming smaller vs. growing younger and large. Another could be between despair and hope. A third translation could be a choice between passivity and action. A fourth could be a choice between perpetuating the past vs. creating a new tomorrow.

In narrower terms, the recommendation at Grace Church could be interpreted as affirming the status quo, while, at Hope Church, the message did not offer the status quo as an option.

It is not necessary to be an expert in cognitive linguistics to recognize that how we state the issue influences the response. Back in 1986, I was diagnosed with cancer of the colon. The oncologist summarized the issue, "You have two choices. You may choose surgery, or you can die." I made the choice that enabled me to write this essay.

The Ethical Issue
By definition, leaders have a responsibility to lead. For Christians, that also adds an ethical dimension. Does a Christian leader have the ethical freedom to offer an alternative course of action that the leader does not believe exists?

A month after my surgery in 1986, I spent several minutes with the oncologist who had recommended surgery. Toward the end of our conversation, I complained, "I was disappointed that you offered me only two options, surgery or death. I was hoping you would suggest a pill I could take every morning at breakfast that would solve my problem." The friendly doctor-patient relationship suddenly turned to ice as he replied, "I do not have an ethical right as a physician to suggest a therapy I do not believe exists!" Apologetically, I explained, "I was just looking for an illustration I could use in my workshops."

To return one more time to the wording of the issue at Grace Church, did that Long Range Planning Committee have an ethical right to submit their recommendation to relocate the meeting place in the form of a "Yes or No" ballot? In many American Protestant congregations, the answer is determined by tradition or the congregation's constitution or an assumption that perpetuating the status quo is always a viable option or a reluctance to open the door to tangential questions.

For example, the single-family house next door to the church property comes on the market. A trustee urges, "Let's call a congregational meeting after church and request permission to purchase it." That is done. To that trustee's dismay, the request is rejected by a 3-to-2 margin One alternative would have been for that trustee, acting as an individual, to purchase a 30-day option to buy that property for a stated price. Two congregational meetings could have been scheduled. The first would have focused on this question, "Is our future to be a small neighborhood church with a walk-in constituency since we now own only seven off-street parking spaces? Or should we plan to invite and welcome potential future constituents who live beyond walking distance?"

What Is the Context?
This last example introduces a central question. Should each recommended change be examined as a separate question? Or should all the means-to-an-end concerns be discussed in the larger context of that congregation's identity, role and goals? The most common examples of means-to-an-end concerns are real estate, money, schedules, personnel and denominational affiliation.

Thus, that first meeting to discuss the availability of that house next door should focus on the distinction between the changes required to continue as a neighborhood church or the changes required to fulfill the role of a larger regional church. At the second congregational meeting, the discussion might evolve into a choice between purchasing the adjacent property and investigating the alternative of relocation in order to be able to become a regional church.

In another congregation, the recent increase in worship attendance has created a demand for an additional service on Sunday morning. If a congregational vote is required to approve such a change, should this be a simple yes-or-no choice? Or should it include the words, "Adding an early service will require moving the beginning times for Sunday school and for the later service by 30 minutes"? Or should the question be stated in terms of seeking approval for the proposed new schedule? Or should the focus of the discussion be on increasing the capability to accommodate more people? Or should the question focus on offering people more choices of both time and the format in design of the worship experience? Or simply as a choice on whether or not to be faithful to the Great Commission?

Perhaps the most subjective example emerges when the death or retirement of the long-tenured pastor is followed by an 18-to-24-month intentional interim pastor. A high priority during that vacancy period is the design of a five or seven-year ministry plan. Toward the end of that time, the search committee begins the process of seeking a permanent successor. Eventually, two candidates float to the top of the list. On the basis of skills, experience and theological stance, one stands out as the ideal candidate to lead that congregation in the implementation of that new ministry plan. The other candidate is a slightly more effective oral communicator and clearly the superior of the two in terms of making a positive impression in interviews. Both candidates are invited to come for a weekend, meet interested people, discuss the ministry plan with those who designed it, and preach a trial sermon.

A few weeks later, at what turns into a two-hour congregational meeting, the two candidates are introduced, questioned and voted on by a paper ballot. The candidate who excels in interviews and is perceived to be the better preacher is chosen by a 293-to-94 majority. Two years later, a special task force is appointed to design a new ministry plan.
The process initially was designed to find a successor who would lead in the implementation of a carefully designed ministry plan. Along the way, however, the process was redefined to create a personality contest.

Participatory Democracy or Representative Government?
That incident introduces two high lines of demarcation that separate congregations in American Protestantism. Well over one-half of all congregations identify themselves as participatory democracies. The opinion or vote of any one member carries equal weight with the vote of every other member. This is an appropriate system for congregational self-government in congregations that average fewer than 100 at worship, but it works best in those averaging fewer than 40 at worship. As size goes up, this system tends to produce conflicts between those who believe in complete egalitarianism and those who are convinced that informed opinions should carry more weight than uninformed opinions.

This first line of demarcation also explains why the majority of congregations in American Protestantism (a) average fewer than 100 at worship, (b) usually are comfortable with pastorates of seven or fewer years, (c) are either on a plateau in size or reporting a long-term decrease in numbers, (d) tend to resist proposals for a change in the definition of identity and role, and (e) tend not to be competitive in that increasing degree of competition among congregations to reach, attract, serve, assimilate, nurture, disciple, challenge and equip as volunteers in ministry the generations of American churchgoers born after 1965.

On the other side of that first line of demarcation are those congregations that place a high value on informed opinions, are reluctant to schedule a meeting that could include several hundred or more voting members, and which have chosen a representative system of governance. The governing board, not a crowded congregational meeting, is affirmed as the proper place to make major policy decisions.

The second line of demarcation has these congregations that are organized with a representative system of governance and an influential role for lay volunteers on one side. This group includes at least one-fourth of the congregations in American Protestantism and that proportion probably is close to 40 percent.

On the other side of this second line of demarcation are those congregations that can be described as staff-led. In some, that means the senior minister is the leader. One common example is the megachurch founded after 1970 in which the founding minister continues as today's senior minister. A second version finds the leadership team consists of the paid program staff plus one or two long-tenured administrators. A third model calls for all major policy decisions to be made by the three-to-five person paid leadership team. Together these churches account for approximately five percent of all the congregations in American Protestantism.

One explanation for the growing number of staff-led congregations is it simply reflects the tripling in the number of very large Protestant churches in America since 1960. As size goes up, one consequence is an increase in the level of anonymity and complexity. That usually means only those who invest 30 to 50 hours a week in the life and ministry of that congregation are able to articulate a fully informed opinion on every major policy issue that is placed on the agenda.

Two Questions
1. When a major change is on the agenda for your congregation, how is it worded? Are the people asked to choose between change and the status quo? Or between change A and Change B?

2. Given the history, culture, polity, size and growth curve of your congregation, what is the appropriate system for governance? A participatory democracy? A representative system for government? A staff-led system?

Which is the appropriate match for what you believe your congregation should, can and will be in 2010?

For more than four decades, Lyle E. Schaller has served as a parish consultant to hundreds of congregations and scores of denominational agencies. His recent books include From Geography to Affinity, The Ice Cube Is Melting, and A Mainline Turnaround.