2000
Theodore Johnson
Congruence and Transitions in Congregational Size
This paper begins by examining the ways in which the typology based on congregational size developed by Arlin J. Rothauge has been misunderstood and misapplied by those who focus primarily on the numerical size of a congregation and ignore the relationship style and leadership structure that matches with the numerical size in each type. As a way of discouraging such misunderstandings this paper offers a theory of congruence, as a framework for the Rothauge typology, which holds that each of the four types of congregations has not only a unique numerical size, but also a unique relationship style and a unique leadership structure. When these three variables are in congruence the congregation is a healthy example of its type. When the variables are not in congruence, there is inevitable dysfunction. There are four dimensions to the congruence theory: descriptive, diagnostic, prescriptive and transforming. The balance of the thesis focuses on the transforming dimension, primarily as it applies to a transition in congregational size. The paper looks at the reasons such transitions often fail, suggesting that the existing members of a congregation resist and sabotage any efforts to change the relationship style and leadership structure, even while embracing a change in numerical size. The paper observes that any strategy for a transition in congregational size, as well as significant demographic or other transitions, must break the “genetic code” of the congregation by attracting new members who desire a congregation that is fundamentally different from the current congregation. The key to breaking the genetic code is to move a group of persons in the congregation to a higher stage of faith development. That group will then become the team that designs and implements the transition strategy. The paper then describes a step-by-step process, modeled on the planting of a new congregation, which will bring into being a new congregational group that, in many respects, functions as a separate congregation, but within the canonical structure of the current congregation. This radical parallel development strategy maintains the new congregational group and the previously existing group side by side (although with totally different programs and, perhaps, with different locations) for a period of time until a conflict forces the two groups to find a new way to work together for a new future.