RE: growth potential

WOW!!!  I agree totally with your last statement about relevance.  And I think that is the core.  A new church is much more apt to relevant because it is designed to by such by the church planter typically but it is possible to plant a church that has all the same problems of relevancy, IFF, the folks that come from the parent church in the antioch model do not come with clean DNA and a commitment to relevance.  Also, a new plant only remains relevant until someone says, "We don't do things around here like that, never have."  At that point it is time to refocus.  The marks of the healthiest, largest and longest term relevant churches are the ones that are able to critically evaluate themselves and change as necessary sometimes on  a dime.  The clearest example is Granger Community Church this year in ditching their Wednesday night believers service which worshiped 1000 folks for 3 bible studies.  The had set an internal figure of about 500 I think to be a success.  The had 2700 the first night. Ability to remain flexible is very important.  Hold some things tightly (our doctrinal standard, our Wesleyan Arminian Theology, our history and commitment to practical holiness and social holiness, etc.) but other things loosely (worship styles, orders, agendas, pedagalogical theories and paradigms, and certainly locations).  Let us not forget Ecclesiates, "for everything a season."

RE: Growth Potential

I think these are great points, and urgent points. Part of our church exists in the mindset of the 1950s where having a building across form the captiol would be the hight of the kingdom and height of releveance. But, in the postmodern world, what does that matter in the end. As you said we have to look at what it means to throw oursleves into this, what woudl the mission look like, and what are teh budgetary realitites. These things are all help in tension. And I know I beat dead horse that I always do, but it's not an either/or thing, it's a both/and. We can plan new churches while at the same time do ministry in existing and turn around churches. Study after study has shown that NCDs actually increase worship attendance in existing churches. In Tupelo, both The Orchard and FUMC (and many other churches) are strong.

The magic bullet of NCDs is relevance. That is not owned only by the NCD, but any church can have it and be relevant. For the existing churches, that means change. For an NCD its easier, it is just born. But, in both cases, if they are relevant, the kingdom will blossom.

Growth Potential

Hey, I have really enjoyed reading the discourse on planting, revitalization etc.  You all are some very bright folks and ask a lot of the right questions.  I am very glad our conference has you as leaders at this critical junction.  I think the decisions made in the next couple of weeks will have a profound affect and effect on our conference for a generation.  Over the last few years there has been a movement among United Methodists recognizing that there is a need to plant new churches.  It grew out of subject experiences but was backed up by statistical research.  Throughout our history we were the strongest and were growing disciples, calling larger and larger number of folks to a saving relationship with Jesus Christ when we were planting churches, in the places where people were and where they were moving too, the frontiers of America.  At one time there were more Methodist meeting houses than post offices.  We also have evidence I am going to try to post here for you from the North Carolina conference who had a season of renewed church planting in the 60's under one particular Bishop.  However, parallel with this realization and movement came a push back, "But what about our existing churches?"  And it has been in this tension that we have seemed to stay for the last few years in United Methodism, not willing to break faith with already existing communities of faith but recognizing a need to plant all of this with a limited pool of resources to draw from, no comprehensive plan to implement either revitalization or planting, and no decision as to which path we will choose.  Slowly however conferences and the denomination (See Path1)  are beginning to make the decision that the most cost effective use of limited resources is to invest in starting new faith communities (by that I mean number of professions of faith or renewed faith journeys per $ invested).  That is not to say that existing church should be abandoned to their own devices.  We are still a connectional church and they are still a part of the body of Christ and can have important ministries.  What we are learning, however, is that as someone said earlier the churches must be willing to develop new ministries, to invest in themselves.  It must, if it is to happen, come from within.  We can expose them to ideas, we can help them understand where they are in the life cycle, we can send them trained and competent turn around pastors but end the end the impetus for change must come internally.  They must be so unhappy with the status quo that remaining the way they are is more painful than the pain they can imagine that will come in change.  Or as Steve Compton, former Director of Congregational Development North Carolina Conference, said, they must experience death or a near death experience before they are willing to move around the circle to new birth or as he put it, "you have to have a corpse to have a resurrection."  Also it might be helpful to note the experience in North Carlolina over the last 4 years.  I am in touch with Steve now trying to get the right figures but they have invested somewhere in the range of $500,000 in a series of church turnarounds over 4 years.  I believe he said that of the churches only 20% experienced any real growth.  However one of the things that North Carolina and Florida have documented is that in the communities where they plant new churches, existing churches see an increase in their growth rates and vitality and spiritual health.  So it seems that one of the benefits of planting new congregations is the positive affect on existing congregations in the area.  I think as I have studied church planting over the last few years I have arrived at what I believe are some truths.

1.  Planting new congregations results in the greatest kingdom growth per $ invested.

2.  There is no one right type of church plant or ideal church plant model.  The plant type must be right for the community and for the skills, leadership, personality and affinity of the church planter.  The planter must have the right affinity for the community and the community must have an affinity for the pastor.  That can mean parachute (but rarely), mother/daughter or Antioch model plant, Elijah church model, merge and move model, merger model, dual campus model, nomadic church model or anything new that the Holy Spirit does.  The key is matching up the right person with the right type in the right place at the right time.

3.  Planters/revitalization pastors need to discern their call here, be trained (Interestingly Jim Griffith is offering a church turn around bootcamp on a Friday, Saturday so that the turn around pastor and key lay people can attend and must attend together), and have a tough coach.

4.  Church planting and revitalization efforts can come from the top down and bottom up.  Yes, we need to have a comprehensive and strategic plan identifying strategic places to plant and strategic churches that might be revitalized.  But yes, if a church not so identified in the strategic plan and a pastor not identified as a planting or turn around pastors self identifies as a church and a pastor that is seeking help and is willing to do what is necessary to effect a turn around then there needs to space left for that work of the Holy Spirit.

5.  There will be some that will never embrace change in whatever form, for whatever reason.  We believe in free will, after all we are not full reform calvinists.  Some may by action or inaction choose death and that is their choice.  We should celebrate their ministry and help them to die with dignity.  However, we should not expend a great amount of resources forcing them to become something that they do not wish to become or do something that they do not wish to do.  

6.  Planting and revitalization are really two separate things.  They involve different skill sets and require drastically different timetables of standards (and yes Neville I think we have to have standards, church planting and within all our congregations).  Florida conference has two separate staff positions for new church and revitalization.  

7.  For any plan there has to be buy in at every level.

and as a last personal note, perhaps this is also a discussion and struggle we should be having over our general conference budget and property holdings.  How many persons are we adding to the kingdom by owning a building across from the U.S. Capital? 

Waiting is the Hardest Part

We are getting ready to have a presentation ready by this Wednesday, November 12 to present next week to the cabinet.

Also exciting news as Stephen Sparks joins our merry band.  Welcome, Stephen!

The waiting is in regard to a presentation that is being presented to our conference by Dr. Lovett Weems dealing with where we go from here in terms of Congregational Development.  It will be an exciting day! 

RE: Assumption vs Fact

I know I'm beating the same dead horse that I beat, but I think in the end it's about the church, whatever context it's in, NCD, established, etc, being relevant to it's community.

I do believe, however, that by in large NCDs have their finger on the pulse of where growth is taking place. Is that to say that existing churches cannot do that? Or course not. But, it is not nature. In an NCD, you'll never hear the phrase, "but we've never done it that way" because they've never done anything before. They have to see what works where they are, and then do that. Too often our established churches doe what we always do because it's what we've always done.

If we are relevant to the needs of our community, we will see the kingdom explode in our midst, new or existing.

I believe we need to be about

1. Accountability and Community. We're not in this alone. Allow Districts and pastors to do whatever works in this context, yet always connected.

2. Strengthening pastoral leadership. We need pastors to lead. Cast a vision. Inspire. Lead

3. Helping lay folks to buy in. How? That's the 64 million dollar question. I think, imo, they have to experience it to believe it. When they experience the relevance, they will buy in.

RE: Assumption vs Fact

I tend to agree with the sentiment that new churches add more substantive growth for a denomination; so, if we are to grow significantly as a denomination, we need to be about the business of starting as many new churches as possible. The statistics as I've seen them through the years are just too overwhelming to ignore. Lyle Schaller is usually a good place to begin if you are unfamiliar with them.

 

However, as Schaller tends to point out, substantive growth comes not just from new churches, but from new ministry in general. To grow, churches must be about the business of starting new ministries. Why? Because people tend not to join old things: churches, worship services, small groups, Sunday School classes. For a variety of sociological reasons, people tend overwhelmingly to join only new activities, activities that don't have any history, any tradition, any long-standing conflicts, any longterm relational cliques. The new ministry provides opportunities for new relationships, new activities, and new leadership. All of these aspects and more make new ministries very appealing to those who do not already belong to a pre-existing group. 

And this is precisely where we older mainline denominations (not just UM) tend to struggle. Because so many of our churches were founded so many years ago, it is very hard for us to begin those new ministries. Because to start new ministries requires change, and change is something churches tend to be very slow to do, for whatever the reason. So we cling to how we've done things, even when we don't remember precisely why we've been doing them that way. To stop the old and change to the new is intimidating. 

And yet, as each of you has suggested, this is precisely where churches of all shapes and sizes have been thriving and growing. When we change and start the new, people are attracted. So, the challenge is, how do we encourage churches to start these new ministries, even knowing in advance that any number of them will fail? After all, most of this is trial and error. For as much as we think we know at times, we often really don't. So many of our attempts are just a shot in the dark. It's why so many new church plants fail. Failure is going to happen. Not everything will work. But, the real crime would be not to try at all. If we never fail, we will never succeed. So how do we encourage existing churches to take the leap and try new ministries? 

And, naturally, we need to keep in mind that not everyone will take us up on it. We can encourage, but we cannot require. After all, as so many small church leaders have chided me: "What exactly is the Conference going to do to us if we don't? We're already small, we're already despised, we've already been handed the leftovers among pastors. So what are they gonna do?" Closing them is the only meaningful threat, but I doubt it's one we really want to use. The irony, of course, is that if they don't change and try new things, they will close on their own in due time. In the meantime, then, all we can do is encourage and resource.

So, to me I think our efforts for existing churches are best spent asking: What resources can we offer pastors and leaders of existing churches that will encourage and equip them to try new ministries that have the hope of being effective? Are there seminars we can offer, consultants we can bring in, blogs we can invite them into, books and articles we can make available? What success stories do we need to tell? What pastors in our own Conference do we need to highlight?
 
Just a few of my thoughts to add to the mix. I've appreciated reading what all of you have written. Look forward to reading more. 

Lauren
 

Re: Assumption vs Fact

This is a great!  We are having this conversation and everyone is able to shore their ideas. Lauren I know that you are still recuperating from being with us yesterday but please feel free to jump in to the mix.  We will need to develop a strategy for the cabinet meeting by next Wednesday, if at all possible. 

 

 I will try and be brief in my responses:

 

 

1.  We should be engaged in both existing churches and new churches.  However as we examine the data (Neville this is from a business prospective as well as a Christian perspective) we must admit that new churches are much more “successful” in winning new converts to Christ.  I believe that since we cannot do everything we must focus on certain areas of emphasis.  The rifle rather than the shotgun approach.  With the current financial crisis this is a must.  Therefore I believe that Lovett’s three types of focus areas and Bill’s outline are very appropriate.  Under this plan we leave no one out but we also move our resources (human, money, etc.) and energy into these three areas (new churches, turn-Around Churches and Elijah Churches). This way the current committees that each of you chair will be at the table and new churches, large churches, ethnic churches, rural churches, urban churches, etc. will all be able to receive some assistance from the conference is they meet certain criteria.  This will not exclude our mission churches, as we are planning a summit about this in collaboration with the North Alabama Annual Conference in February.  The bishop just asked me to help coordinate this effort.  This is an example of how no one will be left out but it is also a friendly reminder that we can not be all things to all people and we must have a focus, a vision and a mission.  Please review the ones that are in the PCDM material that you received recently.  This is the one with the chart on it that lists each of your areas or committees.

 

2  Lovett Weems will serve as our guide in this effort.  As soon as Lovett gets a proposal to me I will share it with the Bishop and cabinet and then with you all.  However, I am pretty certain that this will be his approach as we have had numerous conversations about this in the recent past.  If we allow him to help direct us we will be much better able to go forward.  The Bishop and cabinet endorsed this as his role.  We need to perhaps wait until he sends his proposal before making too many definite plans of action.  However, we do not need to wait on him before we explore the big picture.

 

3. Demographic Data—we can get this data cheaper from other sources like the GBGM or the Planning and Development Districts.  However, in all honesty it is not the same thing.  I will send you a power point that MissinonInsite produced for us that will give you some ideal of what I mean.  If we are going to make hard decisions about where to plant new churches, which ones are to be considered as turn-around and Elijah churches we need accurate data on which to base our decisions.  Many other conferences and Path 1 are using their services.  Their data along with   Lovett’s church and community profile is a must for us.  We must have it or something like it in order to make the best decisions.  I come to this conclusion after three years of research about this.  This is not an overnight decision.  In fact Bill and Stephen Sparks are researching this in more detail as I type this email.  We will not ask the conference to support this if we can secure it cheaper or free else where.  Bill mentioned that we could ask each D.S. to chip in $400 to $500 dollars each and that we could then secure the rest of the money for this service from the Connectional Ministries office and a portion from each of your budgets.  Please go on line to the North Caronia, Baltimore Washington and Florida Annual Conferences to catch a glimpse of how this works.

 

4.   Structure---There is not a need for any new structure on the conference level in order to implement Bill’s suggestion.  Neville if you recall the annual conference and district new church strategy booklet that I sent to you is very similar.  We could allow each D.S. to organize their district as best they see but to follow Bill’s basic plan.  Each district must have a way to identify where and when to plant new churches.  We already have a plan along with the cabinet and Bishop about who will be appointed.  Each district must have a means to identity our best places where turn-around churches are possible and to identify our places where rebirth is the best choice (Elijah Churches).  Each D.S. may form this differently.  For example I believe that more laity ought to be at the table of this process.  Regardless of how the structure looks each of these components will relate to one of the committees that you chair.  For example new churches relate to Denise’s new church committee,   turn-around churches to Andy’s Revitalization Committee and Elijah churches to Lauren’s Small Membership Committee.  There may be exceptions to this but generally this is how this would work, in my mind.

 

5. Prayer—Bill called me yesterday and told me than one of his pastors asked Bill to lead their district in a week of prayer prior to beginning this process.  Like this pastor and Neville I believe that we must begin with prayer and seek God’s guidance for us.  God has the plan we need to connect with him and then move forward.   Let us covenant to pray at noon each day for each other and for the movement of God in this process.  

 

 

6. Last thing---Let us also covenant to have a tangible out line fo a plan as to the next steps by Wednesday. 

 

 

Blessings and peace to all!

 

 

Let us share our thoughts with each other.  Perhaps Andy can set up a blog for us to share our thoughts on.

Re: Assumption vs Fact

Amen, Amen, and Amen to everyone’s thoughts.

 

I like Denise’s point about realigning resources and perhaps having more success than we think….gets into the area where Lovett was talking about moving resources although since I missed the presentation I’m not clear exactly what he said (slide 13 quotes Asbury and says move resources “from the center to the periphery” then on slide 25 he talks about drawing resources from the circumference….anyway, that definitely should be one of the strategic assessment tasks).

 

Of course you are right Andy. This is a complementary effort…I like to visualize a stool: it won’t stand upright without ALL of its legs and, in this case, the legs of our stool are new-churches, revitalization, and small-membership.

 

Last thought: do we have any liaison/relationships with the various Universities around the state (aside from Wesley Foundations of course)? What I’m wondering is if it might be productive/efficient/useful to ‘reach out and touch’ their business/management/leadership/sociology departments and invite them to participate in the strategic analysis of our conference.  I’m sure there are lots of students/professors who “do” demographic research, studies, etc., and maybe we could leverage some of that for free…offer students a chance to do research that benefits them and us at the same time. Also, as I mentioned to you once before Embra, I think it would be very useful to invite in some non-church type folks to talk about things like strategy, managing growth, etc. 

 

Well, okay, I fibbed….one more “last” thought:  considering things from a “business model” viewpoint it’s interesting to compare the approach of Wal-Mart and Walgreens to our conference.  In many ways as I look at our state and our churches it seems that we are perfectly positioned to follow a Walgreens approach (i.e. stores on every corner) vs the Wal-Mart approach of building supercenters and drawing people in to them.  Although, even more intriguing, is that we may be in a position to use the best of BOTH….i.e. revitalize/’Elijah-ize’ ourselves so that our ‘corners’ are productive, and ‘new-church’ ourselves into the growth areas.

 

Final last thought…..PRAYER….we need to PRAY unceasingly that we wake-up from our stupor and get out of the comfortable surroundings that our previous success has bequeathed us.  We need to PRAY that all our conference hears the words to the churches in Revelation 3, particularly Revelation 3:15-17 “I know your deeds, that your are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm – neither hot nor cold – I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.”

 

Let the church say Amen.

 

Re: Assumption vs Fact

What I'm suggesting is an emphasis not an xclusion. We seem 2 b leaning more toward the planting of new churches when perhaps a realigning of resources, esp human may prove 2 b much more fruitful than we thought.

I'm totally with neville n thinkn that the last thing we need is another committee. Perhaps we should simply expand what we already have-neville, andy, lauren, embra, denise-plus eddie, lisa, david, bill, lovett, etc. Not necessarily these people but the areas they represent.

Re: Assumption vs Fact

I don't think it's an either/or, it a both/and.  We need to be about the work of helping established church turn around, small membership churches grow and be stable, and planting new churches.  They are all after different audiences, but the most relevant to the culture churches we have, by and large, will be NCDs.  As Lovett said in his presentation a few weeks ago, we need to be about strengthening what is strong as well.  The NCDs will in the end strengthen existing churches as well.  

 

I am glad we are having conversations about the issue and talking together, instead of "competing strands" if you will.  The more voices, the better the conversation.  

 

We need to be aware of the great danger of Methodism, through. All talk and no action :)

Andy

Re: Assumption vs Fact

Neville, if we follow this thought of establishing benchmarks 4 existing churches & xpect them 2 succeed like the new starts would we even need new starts? Couldn't we simply focus on revitalization? So maybe we only need new starts where there r no um churches around @ all. & how can we raise the level of expecs 4 the small mbr church that can barely pay her bills let alone her apportionments? Let's face it. Ministry costs $ even when its nspird by the Holy Ghost. So then we're bk 2 the issue of revitalization this time through mergers or relocations. Maybe that should b the focal pnt of our nrgy. Just thinkn outloud. Denise

Assumption vs Fact

As I looked at Lovett’s presentation from the 27^th a question arose.  On slide four it states:

 

•       Existing churches alone cannot be expected to increase attendance in proportion with population growth.

 

•       The only means by which the denomination can possibly keep pace with population growth is through new church starts.

 

Are these assumptions or facts?  In planning I’ve always been taught that you make assumptions to fill in the gaps where you just don’t have enough information to conclusively make a statement of fact. Then, as the situation develops, you either validate or replace your assumptions.  I mean, I don’t disagree with either of those statements because they seem intuitively obvious to me. But, at the same time, how do we know they’re true?  For instance:

 

·        Existing churches alone cannot be expected to increase attendance in proportion with population growth.

o       Why not?

o       Does past failure pre-determine future outcomes?

o       Is this a uniquely American experience/phenomenon? Are churches in our growth areas (i.e. overseas) able to draw people in to them without the apparent necessity to go to where they are?

o       Have we told “existing churches” they are expected to grow in proportion to population growth in their areas?

 

I’m also curious as to how the current economic situation and its short-to-mid-term projections impact all this?  What was the economic situation during the data gathering period and how does a change in that situation (either positive or negative) influence projected future church growth activity.

 

Also, not to be overly “business like” with this, is it too much of a stretch to set benchmarks & goals for churches once they’re chartered?  I mean, we start new churches and EXPECT them to be successful. We give them targets, goals, and objectives which are big motivators (in addition to the motivation of the Holy Spirit!)  In such an environment everyone involved knows they need to succeed and they do what it takes to accomplish that goal.  However, once they’re chartered we just seem to let them go their own way.  It seems only reasonable to me to say to churches that if they expect to remain part of the UM connection, draw on UM pastoral resources, apportioned dollars, etc., that we ought to hold them accountable for success, however we’ve defined that for each congregation. That’s just basic Wesleyan thought isn’t it?  I mean if you were in an early society meeting and weren’t living up to the standards you were voted out.

 

Peace,

 

Neville

Ask and you shall Receive

This is a blog for conversation regarding Congregational Development in the Mississippi Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.