Adam Hamilton has some thoughts about the parallels between General Motors and the United Methodist Church. It displays his usual thoughtful strategic and visionary analysis of the state of the denomination. But it also seems to betray some misunderstanding of the nature of the current UMC.
One question that comes immediately to mind is: Does the UMC have too many “dealerships”? That is, do we really need 34,000 local churches with a denomination whose number of “customers” and “market share” has shrunk significantly in the last 40 years?
Could we do more to combine some of our churches into larger and more viable regional churches that, like the unified schools, bring communities together and offer services none of the smaller churches could offer? Where this is not possible, could we move to having more “tent-makers” as pastors in a large number of our smaller churches. “Tent-makers” are men and women who have a full time job that provides their primary source of income and health insurance, and then, like Paul (who was the original “tent-maker”) volunteer their time, or work for part time salary without benefits, to provide pastoral leadership for the smaller churches.
These are, of course, not new ideas. They are being done in a number of locations. But I wonder if its time to proactively, strategically and expeditiously move towards these models in places that otherwise might not consider it for another decade as a way of increasing the likelihood of creating vibrant and sustainable ministry in these locations?
Ummm … we already do this not just in “a number of locations” but as a primary way of doing business in large areas. At least one source reports than nearly 1/3 of all UMC charges are already served by tent-makers. In Southern Indiana, I was told once we have more local pastors (tent-makers) than elders. The UMC would nearly cease to exist in many areas of Indiana without part-time local pastors.
Now, some may see this as a good thing. There is a line of thought that seems to go this way. All these little country churches within a few miles of each other a waste of resources. They should be forced to close and consolidate. If the people who attend those churches and have supported them for 40, 50, or 60 years do not like that – tough. If they refuse to move to a newly planted church, we don’t care. The new church will have a good preacher, cool music, and great programs, so it will grow. Those stuck-in-their ways folks who don’t get along with the program can go find some other church.
My real problem with this is it clashes so strongly with the very rhetoric that church-growth folks use. We need to reach people where they are, they say. We need to enter the culture of the people where they live and connect to them in ways that speak to their needs. This is the entire logic behind many of the new developments in worship and church programming in the last couple decades.
But this rhetoric rings hollow when it is used to justify taking a strong-arm approach toward the “stuck in their ways” folks at Country View UMC. After all, no one would say that suburban folks who would never attend a church with old gospel hymns and “happy-clappy” blood songs should just “get with the program.” Whole books are written to explain that people who expect certain styles of music and swim in popular culture should not be asked to submit to boring old church traditions. If the spirit of such arguments is true, then it should apply to all cultures.
Suburban culture is viewed as desirable, so the church is advised that it has to change to meet the expectations and needs of these people in the name of the gospel. But rural culture and other small church cultures are not desirable, so we view them as excess baggage and a drain on otherwise valuable church resources.
From a “strategic” point of view, maybe this is all just the truth. Priorities need to be set. Some things are valued more than others. The best people have to be put in places. But I can’t help but feel there is a whiff of hypocrisy in arguing that culture must shape ministry choices while saying a culture that embraces small, hyper local churches should be viewed as “excess dealerships” to be downsized or otherwise served by less valuable church resources.
And finally, there is something of a misunderstanding about the nature of the local church here. I’m not an expert on the Discipline, but my understanding is that the denomination cannot tell a church to close or consolidate. It can encourage. It can counsel. It can offer to support the transition, but the local church charge cannot be dissolved by anyone but the local church.
Of course, churches do close. They become small enough that they can no longer sustain themselves. But I do not believe that is a decision that can be imposed from above – no matter how effecient such a choice might be.
I am a part-time local pastor serving 
The doctrine of original sin is surely more humbling to man than the opposite: And I know not what honour we can pay to God, if we think man came out of His hands in the condition wherein he is now.
I didn’t know the issue was one of changing church culture. Would a consolidated church really need to change who they are (i.e., two traditional churches becoming one ‘happy-clappy’ one?)
Perhaps I am simply in a different context: two churches a couple of miles apart that have no missionary purpose but exist only for themselves and exist only by the support of the conference seems to be the tail wagging the dog. But, if two churches a couple of miles apart fit a missionary need in their respective contexts, then I agree with you.
Will, an excellent point and proper push back against my basic point.
The churches I’m thinking of had clearly distinct missionary purposes in 1872 when the church I serve was founded. A few miles was a long way apart.
But none of the churches exist only by the support of the conference. When they cannot sustain themselves, they close.
Your point about missionary purpose is a good one to discuss. How do we define that? As a function of its size, the church I serve right now contributes a significant portion of its financial resources and a significant number of hours of service to its community. It reaches out to and invites into life non-Christians or non-church folks in its vicinity. Compared to a church with 5,000 members, its efforts seem small, but folks at the church would say its smallness is a part of its identity and one of the aspects of the church that they value the most.
My real problem with this is it clashes so strongly with the very rhetoric that church-growth folks use.
I’m pretty much in the same situation you are in and I’m afraid I have a more cynical view.
The small established churches are NOT focused on mission. They are focused on the church seeing them safely out to their grave, as a source of security and the minister as personal chaplain.
Early Methodism grew not because there were small groups but because there were people fired up for the Gospel who wanted to seriously devote their time and energies to discipleship. These small groups were ‘on the up’ because of their passion for Christ.
I stick with my assertion that small groups don’t make passionate disciples that grow into larger groups, passionate disciples make small groups that grow into larger groups.
I like your phrasing about small groups and spiritual growth.
So, what do you do to get there?
I think I’m saying that I don’t think that there is a way to force denominations to grow.
Is ‘growth’ actually a Christian value or a secular one?
What is the calling on this generation of Western Christians? Maybe it’s to be less ‘successful’ in secular terms (I think ‘perpetual growth’ is a secular value, not a Christian one) and to keep the faith for future generations.
This doesn’t mean that I’m going to ‘stop trying’ any more than it means that I think we should sit back and say ‘God will bring about the New Creation in his own time, so we don’t have to do anything.’
Count me as one of those who think that institutional Christianity is lost. However, I suspect where I’m different is that it’s not because I think that the Church is unorthodox but that I think a lot of our ‘blab em and grab em’ philosophy of the past (‘Convert people by formula and then get them into church membership) isn’t based on any kind of passion for showing the love of Christ but on the ‘worldly’ mindset that economic and organisational growth is the primary goal and meaning of life.