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?
No comments:
Post a Comment