In my last entry I compared the trend towards multi-site churches to the forming of a denomination. The comparison could be made the other way, too, with what I think could be revolutionary results.
When I was a pastor in Kansas City, we were always very clear with each other that we were not in competition with each other for members. Under the surface, though, we always knew when a person moved on to another United Methodist church and were disappointed with that. There was, at least for me, a sense that we had to keep up with other churches or we would "lose" to them. In other words, without admitting it, we did feel in competition.
A few years later I helped start First UMC Lawrence's second site. We always enjoyed having a "guest" who normally worshipped downtown, but if that person went back downtown the next Sunday it was no big deal. We were still connected to them because we were one church. We truly were not in competition.
The difference between these two situations is obvious - in one case, we were functioned as one church in two places. In the other case we functioned as 20 churches in one metropolitan area. But what if a denomination (say, United Methodism, since that's what I am) understood itself as one church in multiple locations with one staff of multiple pastors and laity, one mega-megachurch with shared resources to reach the world for Christ? What would be different? In Kansas City, we could say it's OK for Church of the Resurrection to be a megachurch and for Leawood to be a program sized church and for DeSoto to be a pastoral sized church. We need different sizes to meet different needs. It's OK for one church to reach primarily to seniors and another primarily to postmoderns, for two or more churches to have a shared youth group or UMW, even sharing staff, because ultimately even if someone switches from worshipping in one location (i.e. church) to another location they are still part of the same Church.
This isn't really a new idea. this is the Body of Christ. This is, in UM lingo, the parish system that was popular several years ago. But perhaps the new multi-site movement will give us a new way of framing a conversation about what it really means to be United Methodist (or Lutheran, Baptist, or whatever you might be.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
David, I like your thoughts! This would be a whole different understanding of church. It would allow us to be more relational, more able to join together to transform our communities, and likely become more effective in worship. Given that in KS there is a huge percentage of United Methodist Churches who worship less than 30, this may be a way that we can move into the future with strength and connection.
What actions could we take in the near future to pave the way for such a change in understanding in the future?
Dustin
Thanks, Dustin. Your question is a good one that I'm not sure I can answer. In the UMC I wonder if the best way is to have conversation at the District level. In fact, this post is the clearest articulation of a thought that started to emerge years ago from a District meeting when Steve Hughes was the Kansas City DS.
Another thought is that this approach could be a byproduct of the Ministry Study Commission if their preliminary report becomes church policy in 2012 (which probably won't happen.) One suggestion was that most local pastors would no longer be able to preside over sacraments. If that happened, the only way I can figure that sacraments could be administered at all would be for an elder to have responsibility for a number of churches, with local pastors responsible for weekly preaching and the elder supervising the LP's. That kind of system of appointments might actually work and could indirectly lead to the kind of approach I'm suggesting we take.
Several churches in Missouri have tried multi-site. A few with amazing success. Most have not done so well. I don't think there is anything wrong with a church that worships 250 that is vital, healthy and strong. The problem is in the very modern suggestion that if it doubles then it's a successful church. A postmodern view would be getting away from the numbers games of boomers and toward assessing spiritual vitality and healthy from a completely different set of criteria...of which, no one has really put forth yet. I know you are working on it, but until done, the competition, size issues and ultimately top done thinking rule the playground. Do you ever feel like someone is saying, my sandbox is bigger than yours and well, that means I know best...
agreement with some of the others - a lot of the competition stems from the 'team' mentality, and it emerges from a good place: we want to help more people come into recognition of god's grace.
i think a lot of it has to do with smaller churches being uncomfortable with their identities. i work at a church now that worships about 150, but is surrounded by huge, established, city churches. the church is extremely uncomfortable with its size and wants to be more like the churches surrounding us. i think this kind of concern is totally misplaced.
In response to Jeremy's comment about a lack of criteria: there is a text written by Dan Dick, Vital Signs: a pathway to congregational wholeness. He argues that it is much more difficult to be a vital church and a very large church. It may be a step towards helping to define new criteria for "success".
I agree with Emily that one of the issues is the smaller churches' identity. It is symptomatic of the whole western culture - we focus on our weaknesses and not on our strengths and God-given gifts for service and ministry.
David, I hope that on a district level we could look at new options!
Post a Comment