A message for the United Methodist Church Planting Movement
Here's a article that might help illustrate some things.
First I'm all for the UMC planting more churches. I think church planting may be the single greatest leverage the UM might have at "turning the tide" of decline.
If you are United Methodist, it's worth a read. There are a few Walls this movement to plant hundreds of churches in the US each year will engage
- WALL #1: The Rule that UM churches must be geographically spaced apart with significant distance between each of them. They each get their own territory.
---- the problem with this wall is that MOST UM churches aren't growing, reaching people or reaching new people at all. So by geographically separating themselves from each other, they are simply insuring that they are not reaching people within existing church territories.
- WALL #2: The Rule that UM churches must get land is born from the territorial issue above. If you have a territory, then you'd better get some land in that territory before it all disappears.
---- the problem with this wall is obvious. The unchurched people you are hoping to reach are generally not big givers and it's an assumption to believe that they even want a building at all.
- WALL #3: The Leadership Wall: The UM will likely plant churches with existing pastors within the UMC. If I could be so bold as to suggest that this will be a significant problem. There are some great leaders within the UMC who will make great church planters. But I'm not sure there are hundreds per year. At least not initially. Most of the church planter type folks left the UMC long ago because of the denominations assumptions about leadership and church planting from the past. Turning the Tide will mean the UMC needs to actively pursue church leaders at every level who are gifted at starting new churches. I've simply been to too many UM church plants that are as irrelevant as the um church down the street... Its just that they have a newer building.
First I'm all for the UMC planting more churches. I think church planting may be the single greatest leverage the UM might have at "turning the tide" of decline.
If you are United Methodist, it's worth a read. There are a few Walls this movement to plant hundreds of churches in the US each year will engage
- WALL #1: The Rule that UM churches must be geographically spaced apart with significant distance between each of them. They each get their own territory.
---- the problem with this wall is that MOST UM churches aren't growing, reaching people or reaching new people at all. So by geographically separating themselves from each other, they are simply insuring that they are not reaching people within existing church territories.
- WALL #2: The Rule that UM churches must get land is born from the territorial issue above. If you have a territory, then you'd better get some land in that territory before it all disappears.
---- the problem with this wall is obvious. The unchurched people you are hoping to reach are generally not big givers and it's an assumption to believe that they even want a building at all.
- WALL #3: The Leadership Wall: The UM will likely plant churches with existing pastors within the UMC. If I could be so bold as to suggest that this will be a significant problem. There are some great leaders within the UMC who will make great church planters. But I'm not sure there are hundreds per year. At least not initially. Most of the church planter type folks left the UMC long ago because of the denominations assumptions about leadership and church planting from the past. Turning the Tide will mean the UMC needs to actively pursue church leaders at every level who are gifted at starting new churches. I've simply been to too many UM church plants that are as irrelevant as the um church down the street... Its just that they have a newer building.
Labels: News, Systems Thinking
posted by mark at
11:52 AM
1 Comments:
A comment from a non UM, who is a friend of many UM's.
....DUH!
This is an issue that most of the UM pastors I know personally are frustrated with, too. The problem, in my opinion, has it's roots in the higher levels. And it's not a uniquely UM problem, by the way.
I see what you're saying about the problematic nature of territorial boundaries and improper leadership. So should we rid ourselves of the rules and plant more churches in the area, or should we reinvent ourselves and get better leadership (or leaders who lead in a more relevant paradigm) in the existing church? I'm not totally against the move of planting new churches, but I am disturbed by the trend of just giving up and starting over. Who's to say we can't make our currently irrelevant churches into relevant communities. Are we just afraid of the work it will take? Or too lazy? Is the problem that we want what a different type of community, right now, and we're not willing to wait for it and work for it?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home