General Motors and the UMC
General Motors just confirmed that it will eliminate it’s Pontiac division and reduce the number of dealerships by 42% in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy and to return to health and viability. I wonder what lessons there may be for the United Methodist Church in this announcement? 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? As a large number of our clergy retire over the next fifteen years this will become a practical necessity. Being proactive in this would also allow us to deploy many of our new young clergy to either creating new regional churches or launching entirely new congregations. A plan like this would also require our seminaries to focus their training on new church development and the leadership skills needed to combine churches into regional congregations. A simplified course of study might also be required for the tent-makers given that they will have full time jobs outside the church and may not be able to take time away to fulfill the requirements of the course of study.
Of course GM’s reducing the number of dealerships and closing the Pontiac division will not ensure its future viability. In the end this will depend upon their building great cars that people are excited about and which represent a great value. They’ve made strides in that direction in recent years. But it’s worth nothing that the structural changes are meaningless unless they offer a great product. Which points to the truth that structural changes in our denomination are only part of the issue. We can have the perfect structure, but if people walk into our churches on Sunday morning and the worship and preaching is uninspiring, the people unwelcoming, and the ministries of the church unimpactful, we will continue to decline. Churches with effective leaders, inspiring worship and preaching, and loving and compassionate congregations who reach out to their communities and seek to positively impact the world tend to grow.
The hope at GM is that the current moves will help the company emerge stronger and more viable, able to make great cars that people want to drive at a price that represents great value. The hope in whatever changes we might make in the UMC is that our denomination would emerge stronger, healthier and making a better use of our resources to further the work of Christ. But both GM and the UMC will have to work at ensuring that the “products” we offer are excellent and connect with the “consumer” we hope to reach. The alternative for GM, and for the UMC, is to keep doing the same thing we’ve been doing and to hope for different results.
What are your thoughts?
32 Comment(s)
Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.
Rosalie | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Rev. Adam – I think your take on this issue is spot on. I am a member of my district’s DCOM and meet with pastors of very small churches regularly. Most of them have 4, 5, or even 6 or 7 church charges (sometimes sharing the load with just one other person)! Many of them preach three times each Sunday, not to mention the driving, sermon prep, pastoral care…the list is almost endless. However, there is a huge sticking point which I’m sure you are aware of-the folks who attend these small churches will often not get together for so much as a picnic because they feel that if they attend an event at another church they will be “giving in” and their own church will be the one that closes. This is a sad state of affairs, but as you point out, in the very near future churches will be forced to close or combine; wouldn’t it be wise to at least begin those conversations now? I also agree with another point you make – that of having “tent-makers.” These folks could be instrumental in moving the church in a new direction, while helping the UMC to offer a “quality Product.” Thanks for your thoughts on this not-so-easy-to-broach subject(at least in my neck of the woods!).
Mark Conard | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Adam,
Thanks for having the courage to put your insights and ideas into words. I have spent my entire career (at least the first thirty eight years!) in a denomination that has been in numerical decline. I have also spent the bulk of that time in solitary or solo pastoring. I am not sure if there is a relationship or not. That may be something worth pondering.
Things have also changed since I began ministry–officially in 1971. Until my current appointment, every congregation that I pastored “tende to grow,” though I didn’t have a specific plan for helping make that possible. It just seemed to happen.
That has not been the case in my current setting, where I have pastored since 2001. We are currently in a process of “re-visioning” who we are and what we believe God is calling us to do. The jury is still out on whether we will come to believe that God is actually calling us to substantive change in our local setting.
Whatever happens, it is certainly time for us as United Methodists to begin to figure out–with God’s grace and guidance–a different way of doing things. Perhaps the downsizing in the number of bishops in 2012 will be a catalyst for us to begin to take more responsibility for who we are and how we function. In all likelihood, a “different way of doing things” will need to be nurtured “from the bottom up” more than “from the top down,” or perhaps the better language is “from the local to the general” as opposed to “from the general to the local.”
For whatever it’s worth, I am not completely comfortable with talk of a “quality product,” but that is exactly what people ned to experience–whatever we choose to call it.
Excellence in what we do ought to be a characteristic for all that we do as United Methodists–or perhaps God is calling us not (or no longer) to do that particular thing!
revstanford | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Adam,
Like the others who have posted, I agree with the idea that we need to evaluate the best way to maximize our ministry impact. With a marketing background, I always analyze the number of churches (UM and others) in a given “ministry zone” and identify the key ministries the churches provide. In doing that a few years ago, when I was serving a small church in an urban setting, I discovered 9 UM churches within a 5-mile radius, of which only 2 were over 125 in worship attendance.
So, after discussing the possibilities with various conference leaders, I participated in an experiment of closing two small churches who were within a mile of each other and restarting with a new name and new vision with a core group of the members of the two former churches. We also sold both of the old, operationally expensive buildings and moved into temporary worship space, invested in land, and minimized our operational costs.
I can tell your for certain that United Methodists are NOT ready for downsizing – there was opposition at every turn from both denominational leaders and church members, even though the same leaders initially supported the idea and church members approved every step. Folks could intellectually see this as a way forward that made sense, but emotionally were unable to let go of old buildings, former church identities, and “the way we used to do things.” Certainly I made several mistakes and learned a great deal about the process. However, I learned that any “consolidation” efforts, however rightly motivated and stewardship wise they may be, will be very, very, VERY challenging.
Looking back, would I have done it all over again? Yes, definitely because I believe it is one of the most promising ways forward to be faithful stewards of the resources God has provided for UMCs. Would I have done it differently? ABSOLUTELY. I would have found a “mother” church that wanted to grow and who would provide a core group to assist in the process and encourage the folks through the hard times. I would have partnered families/individuals from the mother church to people in the churches who were consolidating. I would have ensured, at the very least, Cabinet buy-in and visible conference support. I would have looked at the 5-year cost and cost-savings – quantifying the results in a stewardship-focused light. I would have ensured financial support for the 5 years from either the conference or mother church or both. And, I would have allocated at least 18 months for the planning window before any changes were made. Would this have made a painful process for the small churches who closed pain-free? No, but it would have helped them through the pain without losing hope and identity as connected United Methodists.
guy m williams | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Thanks, Adam. I appreciate the connection here. What is happening with GM (among others) makes concrete the choices we face in light of declining “market share” and rapid leadership attrition over the coming decade.
You say: “But it’s worth nothing that the structural changes are meaningless unless they offer a great product. Which points to the truth that structural changes in our denomination are only part of the issue.”
The way I have been thinking about this lately, with some help from Andy Stanley’s podcast, is that there’s a difference between organizational structure and organizational culture. Stanley says you can cast the compelling vision and announce the changes, but people are still going to return to their offices and keep working the way they always have unless you address culture. Organizational culture will trump vision every time. I would say it this way for our UMC situation: Denominational culture will trump structural changes every time.
We need changes in our organizational culture. For that, we need people who can lead us in that very specific task. That’s not just anybody—but we need to find, invest in, and trust them.
Trevor | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
But the church is not business, indeed the church is called to be the prophetic antidote to the powers and principalities that prevail in this world.
We the church must guard against adopting the “cut all costs at all costs” approach of corporate culture.
Sam Fisher | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
How does one measure effectiveness. I would be careful when attempting to measure effectiveness in terms of head count. There are many large churches, I am not including COR here, that I believe are very effective with the wrong message. There is a point at which analogy between “church” and corporation breaks down. General Motors works by numbers and to some extent the church does have to consider numerical viability. But lets be careful using a “balance sheet” approach as a method to measure a churches “effectiveness.”
When joining a word like “old” with a word like “ineffective” with the conjunction “and”, a less than careful reader might jump to the conclusion that anything old was somehow ineffective.
Finally I hope those things be thrust on us by “culture and circumstance” as not necessarily a harbinger of inevitability. I might also wonder if one can be sure that this movement of our world is God’s doing.
Sam Fisher | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
I just noticed part of my reply only makes sense if one reads the replies to this post on FaceBook.
Sorry if that makes it confusing.
James Parks | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
I have come to this same conclusion myself. As a young clergy in the Iowa Conference where our median attendance is 45 (meaning we have around 400 churches with attendance below 45 and 400 with attendance above 45) and it takes 125 in attendance to support a full-time pastor with benefits. Anyone with math skills can figure out this does not work.
I would often joke with people about our previous Bishop’s vision to start a new church each year and I said we should be closing a church every year.
Bringing churches together may be a challenge, but if we are not being challenged in ministry then we are not putting forth our best efforts with the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
Chris J. | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Good thoughts to ponder. It’s definite that smaller “markets” will be impacted before larger markets.
What I found most interesting, and in line with some of the blogs and articles written by Ben Simpson, is that no mention of the use of technology was mentioned. Maybe that’s the “second tier” to the solution. I truly think that technology can be used effectively to reach people in areas where it doesn’t make sense to establish ‘brick-&-mortar’ churches.
Art Carter | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Good stuff brother!
I agree with you on all of the working points. As a member of the AME Church transitioning into the UM Church, I am encouraged to know that persons like yourself and others are giving this serious thought. It saddens me that my own denomination is years away from the same.
I think the suggestion of a regional church model is significant. It’s interesting to note that many church members can ultimately accept the fact of businesses merging/closing for survival, and the positive benefit of the consumer. Yet, they see merging/closing churches as a negative thing that should be feared and warded-off at all costs – and something they will never fully accept. Honestly, seeing the way some past mergers/closings have taken place in both denominations – I don’t blame them! I think a well-thought-out plan encompassing the entire process of merging/closing congregations, and a couple of major examples of success can help some of the die-hard “local church defenders.”
Also, from the seminary perspective, it has long been my contention that the focus has seemingly been on training pastors to “maintain” congregations through the basic/traditional components of church ministry – to the detriment of the Church. In my opinion, what would be more helpful is an emphasis on current, effective tools (i.e. evangelism, mission, marketing, people/social skills, administration, etc.) for improving the pastoral skill-set, and partnering with congregations in healthy and informed ways that will produce wholistic growth. What would happen if all of our healthcare workers were only trained to “maintain” a patient’s current state of health, vs./ having a skill-set that would allow them to observe, diagnose, prescribe remedies, and work with patients to design therapy for those that are in less than perfect health?
I believe the Good News shared and lived in community is still effective for transforming lives – it’s the lack of transformation and effectiveness of clergy and congregations that has me worried…..
Sam Fisher | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
A video feed provides little comfort to the mother and father who experience the death of a child. A DVD with upbeat music and a Disneyland approach to ministry will be a little comfort to the mother with three children whose husband packed his bags.
Church is not all about Sunday. The lonely, and the lost don’t care a flip about second tier. Ministry is about individual people, not congregations. We should have never built the first building, we should have stayed on horseback. Rather than video feed, and second teir ministry for those insignificant smaller groups, we need to look backward rather than forward.
I am sure some of you have shared this experience, the last thing I did before leaving my student charge of under 100 people was hold the hand of a man as he literally took his last breath on this earth. Do that with technology. I am afraid technology would have been little comfort to that family gathered around their husband, father and friend on that morning. Call me an old fuddy-duddy I think this conversation is getting off the mark of what we are about and frankly it makes me more than just a little sad. The church doesn’t change people’s lives–people change people’s lives. Pogo, a comic strip character of a time past said something like this, “I believe I have seen the enemy and he is us.” Maybe we need more churches, rather than fewer churches. Heaven forbid that I need my regional church that is twenty miles away on Wednesday night at 1:00 am. Maybe the recorded message or website link will refer me to a nice comforting YouTube link.
Now notice how I have ranted from the other side. Part of my position is merely to take the other side in order to make a point. I was a technology person for over 30 years and technology is not the answer–people are the answer. If we forget that, I am afraid Jesus will find another way to get across his message. If we forget about people, the church that we have so strongly claimed to be building for Jesus Christ will surely be built on sand and will wash away with the tide.
Nancy | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Your article is refreshing in that it introduces a new way of thinking…that is always good. What we do with it is up to whether or not we really want to reach inside people’s hearts. If we are more effective in moving towards a more consolidated base, it makes sense to give it some thought.
I agree that technology and clever presentations don’t do much for searching, hurting or otherwise troubled people. We need to be careful that we don’t buy into the “need” to entertain more than we need to reach minds, hearts and souls.
Jeremy Vickers | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
I have been in the United Methodist Church all of my life. I’m 35 years old and have served as an associate pastor, pastor of a two point charge and now serve as pastor in a suburban church. I appreciate your blog and thoughts on the future of the UMC. Essentially you are saying that we should plan for the inevitable. I am all for planning and trying to proactively deal with the decline that the UMC is facing. The problem is I’m not really sure that we can develop a strategy without taking a look at the whole process from the inside out and the outside in. At General Conference, faithful and loving people gather from all of our conferences and try and do their best to fix, change and modify the way we do ministry. The problem with GM is not just a few bad vehicles or bloated salaries. Their problem was and is systemic. The whole system was breaking down, not because certain cars were failing to sell. The UMC has great potential for the future of leading in reaching people for Christ, but it will take a massive overhaul of recruitment, training and deployment before we begin to see the fruit of that labor. Sadly, I feel that we just keep taking the car in for realignments and buying new parts when in reality, we might be driving the wrong car or we need a new version of it. Hopefully as I have seen the possibility of a turnaround where I serve become reality, it’s not too late for the United Methodist Church. I assume that if you asked most United Methodist who attend worship, most of them would not see the dramatic need for change. They might choose a tune up. Grace and Peace, Jeremy
Kevin | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Adam,
Your thoughts are on target, and I agree with Guy. Nothing will change as long as the leadership of the UMC understands, and can create, culture shift within the church. I’ve watched several UM pastor friends walk away from the UM Church because there’s too much lip service from the D.S.’s, Bishops, and General Conference.
Energetic pastors with a solid vision who are reaching people for Christ get frustrated with the “red tape”. So, those who have a quality product and can present Christ in a compelling way feel as if they have no assistance from those they report to and have submitted themselves to. In fact, many of them frequently report getting their hands slapped when they try innovative things. But, those pastors who tow the line and are relatively ineffective but keep the status quo, they continually climb “the ladder” (get larger appointments, D.S. appointments, etc…).
In this way, the UMC has been setup very much like the corporate establishment – and even unions. Don’t rock the boat, stay in line, fly under the radar and we’ll promote you. How can the local church pastor create lasting change when his/her leaders operate from a different framework and point of reference?
Look at the difference between GM and Toyota. Toyota figured out a way to push the decision-making processes to those laborers on the assembly line. Each worker can stop the entire production line if they think something needs changed. They have the authority and the power to stop production and then make the change. Each line worker has the opportunity to lead. GM, not so much. Do what your told.
I think the issue goes beyond ‘is the UMC willing to make the tough decisions to change’, I think the issue is ‘can the UMC leadership even understand or recognize the change needed’. Technology doesn’t even play into this issue because that’s just a surface level piece. The deeper issue is a complete re-structuring – making a new structure of leadership.
Duane Anders | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
Great thoughts.
I don’t think our structure has kept my church from growing nor helped my church to grow.
Right leadership in the right place at the right time.
What if no one could be ordained with out proving growth of a group, a service, some followers of Jesus, changed community?
What if we no longer appointed leaders to churches that were not moving forward but freed them to continue with lay leaership.
I get the “we got to many dealerships’ idea…but can tell you when we relocated with the church i serve in alocation that already had 12 UMC’s with in five miles we still have grown.
Too many churches is not the problem… I think it comes back to leadership…ours(clergy) and lay leadership.
Duane Anders
DS Miamivalley/Pastor Stillwater UMC
Ali Petrey | Apr 27, 2009 | Reply
I think the question is not if, but when…
consolidation is inevitable.
I believe it will cause us to take a second glance at our ecclesiastical definitions as UMC’ers…
…which may be a very healthy, vibrant thing.
JT | Apr 28, 2009 | Reply
Your blog is wonderful insight. Pastor Adam you are a great visionary and I pray the knowledge of your team players transcends the Kansas City metro and seep into the rest of the states of Kansas and Missouri. After watching two mid-town churches crumble from lack of proper direction, I hope lessons will be learned from mistakes and that the conferences have the ability to use God’s grace to allow the Methodist Church survive this period of readjustment.
John Meunier | Apr 28, 2009 | Reply
I’m a bit confused.
We already have a huge and robust “tent maker” ministry in the UMC. There are 26,000 charges in the UMC (as opposed to churches) and nearly 1/3 of them are served by local pastors or lay speakers, according to the Interpreter: http://www.interpretermagazine.org/interior.asp?ptid=43&mid=13321
In Indiana, there are more churches served by local pastors than by elders. We already have a course of study for folks who have full-time jobs other than as clergy.
As for closing churches, I believe it is not within the powers of the denomination to do that. Only a local church can close itself, so any strategy to do so would have to be persuasive rather than top-down.
Bill McClung | Apr 28, 2009 | Reply
I would agree with Adam’s thoughts as well. The problem seems to be that no one wants to be the leadership that closed multiple churches. Even though those congregations were spiritually dead or crippled by size. Even our attempts to “change” are nothing more than (to borrow an illustration from one of Adams sermons) fresh paint on a car with a rusted body.
We are not willing to do the work to change and that will ultimately be out death.
At the same time I know another clergy here on my district in VA that brings up a good point. We usually take two smaller struggeling churches and want them to merge with addressing the issues that cause struggle. Then when they merge we are just dealing with one larger struggeling church. How can we better deploy ourselves on God’s mission? That is where our prayers should be!
Charles Jordan | Apr 28, 2009 | Reply
The decline of GM compared to the UM decline brings out two different types of failure. Where the GM decline has suddenly appeared and the management failed to respond with necessary measures to change the loss into gain not so with the UM. We have gradually declined as other mainline denominations. This was caused more by our leaving our congregations than any other thing. Hundreds of UM left the church in our city and went to the Southern Baptist. The reason they gave was the writings, comments by professors in our UM colleges, press releases on policy toward abortion, same sex marriage and pure unadulterated liberalism.
Go ahead and close the small churches, combine the so called large churches into campuses and we’ll still be declining. We are causing this with a continuing failure to excite the people and offer Jesus Christ.
Paul | Apr 28, 2009 | Reply
My comments will not be nearly as informed or insightful as those already posted. I have been a member of RezWest nearly since inception. This is my first foray into the UMC. Just some random (and likely disjointed) thoughts as well as questions about this. I’m curious about the role of the denomination. Are individual churches (in keeping with the business analogies) like franchisees. Do larger churches subsidize smaller churches. Are small and declining churches a drag on denominational resources? Does the leadership have the authority to dictate these kinds of changes?
While our family loves RezWest, I think it is unlikely we ever would have joined COR, which is sad, because we surely would have missed out on your spectacular sermons. There are clearly many factors that influence folks seeking a church home, not the least of which is size. I also feel there are many people who are immediately turned off by the analogies of churches to business. I personally am not, but it makes some take the leap that it is all about the almighty dollar rather than the Almighty God. I realize that we were commissioned to spread the Word and grow the church, but I’m sure there are more than a few churches around who are content to be small and share their fellowship amongst themselves and don’t have the grandiose plans and visions that a church with the resources of a COR have. Is that OK? or are they lesser Christians. (That was rhetorical) These questions are not personal towards you in any way as I and my family are inspired by your leadership. If I may gush on you a little, in 30 some years of church going, I have only had one other pastor that was even remotely in your league with regards to being inspiring to me. Lots of other good pastors, but just not remotely on the same level as you. I suspect this kind of talk makes you mildly uncomfortable, but you must realize that what you have done with COR cannot simply be formulaically repeated. You are truly gifted. So I believe it would be rather difficult to offer that ‘quality product’ in thousands of locations across the country. Thanks for the thought provoking post. I’m just a simple layperson trying to get a better grasp of how the “business” end of the church at the higher levels works.
Adam | Apr 28, 2009 | Reply
Thank you each for contributing to a thoughtful conversation on an important topic.
Mike Oles | Apr 29, 2009 | Reply
I think the real analogy for us UMCers here might be comparing GM to Toyota.
GM spent the 90s and the first 2/3rds of this decade selling SUVs and Hummers. Big cars that made money in the short term. Who cared if they were bad for the environment or for the most part unneccesary for the 99% of Americans who do not drive offroad.
And they killed their innovative electric car program, like they killed the urban rail system sixty years earlier.
Toyota developed the Prius. And while the fancy HUMMER dealerships now look like abandoned wastelands, Prius’ are everywhere and the 2010 Prius might be one of the best cars ever built.
I think the UMC has spent too much time and money building and selling Hummers and SUVS when they should have been developing new models that took on modern day challenges.
I think the UMC has spent a good part of its history–at the local congregation level acting more like GM than Toyota.
steve | Apr 29, 2009 | Reply
Maybe we need to “rethink” the “owndership experience” as GM is saying. We need to provide better training for our pastors to lead their congregations. We can close the doors of some churches, but we still have to figure out how to impact our communities for Christ.
hc | Apr 29, 2009 | Reply
I refuse to compare the Church of Jesus Christ found in the United Methodist denomination to a human-made business built on profit.
Whatever correlations exist show a lack of faith in what God can do with His bride…the people He loves…the people He sent His Son to die for.
GM is facing the consequences of sin! Greed is their downfall!
Adam…Adam…Adam…this isn’t time to close churches and create COR’s all over the place.
This is time to give our churches, small and large, the hope that with God all things are possible and that any church who finds their calling to their particular community will find support from their district and conference, not a video feed from on high!
For disclosures sake, as a UM elder, I’ve served the smallest of churches and now serve a church of 400 members. Part of our ministry has been reaching out to smaller churches and sharing our resources including personel and we’ve seen some sort of growth of each congregation.
I’m not ready to write off any church who is still ministering to their communities effectively.
How dare anyone have the audicity to say that small doesn’t work. Shame Adam…shame.
Casey Taylor | May 1, 2009 | Reply
I didn’t see any shame being placed on small churches by Rev. Hamilton in this post. In fact, I think he demonstrated an openness to new forms of pastoral ministry – particularly for small churches – that others in the UMC refuse to consider. Example: Adam mentioned “tentmakers,” or bivocational pastors. From my vantage point, the UMC at large would resist this because of clergy entitlement (and I’m clergy, so I can say that).
But I also think Adam is asking the church as a whole to think missionally. Many small churches pride themselves on blending into the American landscape; and what’s a landscape without a little church? That’s not mission: it’s museum.
Tiny Methodist churches dot small towns across America. This is testimony to the time when Methodists pushed west with the pioneers. Yet demographics and society itself have changed significantly. Small churches cannot provide the upkeep on their aging facilities, nor provide for full time pastors. I have often wondered what sense it makes to scatter our resources.
For example, I serve a church with about 50 people in a town of about 2,000. There are at least 6+ UM churches within 10-15 miles of my charge, most of which are already yoked together on a multi-point charge. Why not consolidate some of these churches into one regional church, providing a fresh sense of misison and pooled resources to reach the region the members hail from? If people will drive 30 minutes to work or shop, why can’t they drive 15 minutes to worship?
Linda | May 1, 2009 | Reply
UMC is down 3 million members “customers” in the past 40 years, but has not reduced number of Seminaries “factories/headquarters”. Church money “Govt Bailout” is supporting each about $1 million/year. And, Adam you want us to donate additional money directly to St Paul’s Seminary “Pontiac Plant” to help get them out of their technology ice-age.
Ted Kraft | May 2, 2009 | Reply
Adam,
My wife Roxanne and I have relocated to Dallas from OP. We are attending HPUMC. I enjoy Mark Craig’s messages but yours touched me at a deeper level. I mention this because you are rare. Your inspirational messages laced with humor are a gift from God. If there was a way to use you to inspire like minded people to lead the church, I would agree with your idea of consolidation.
We are in the business of creating a company unlike any other in our industry. Of course the key to our success is finding the correct people to get on our bus. Like minded people who do what we do because it is their passion. The message we deliver to our fellow team mates is one that you gave in a sermon. We ask our co workers to find their own song.
The church needs to find a way to attract and keep more pastors like you plain and simple. By creating an environment for people like you to live a successful and fulfilling life the church will attract a more dynamic group. People that want to make a difference need the vehicle to affect change. By consolidating and focussing the mission of the church more leaders will emerge.
To begin this movement, an inspirational leader needs to emerge to set the tenor of the movement. You are the perfect candidate to assume that role. Your charismatic leadership will inspire many to join. You just need a bigger stage to reach a broader congregation.
Every revolution has a leader. I vote for you.
Ted
Art | May 3, 2009 | Reply
Many things caused GM its financial problems. Greed never produces good results!
Competing with a comparable or better product
always produces good resuls! Cutting dealerships is just going to show on paper that
less money is going out and what is left may be
producing less of a loss. Bottom line is, either produce a better product or go out of business!
I grew up Methodist and my home church will always be home to me! However, Many years
ago I got disappointed by all the red tape the
Methodist church required with a lack of
evangelism to go along with it! We can not be
satisifed to just stay within our own walls and
expect to grow! I am now a member of Vineyard
Christian Church. When I started in 1988 we
had 325 members. Easter week-end we had over
12,090 attending. We have outgrown two new
sanctuaries! Why? The focus has always been
on strong biblical teaching and evangelism! The word gets out fast! It doesn’t happen over
night though! To combine churches and continue
to operate the same will only produce the same
results as in the past! We, as christians, need to tell others that Jesus is Lord! We can
not make it in life without Him! Every member
needs to give this message to co-workers, neighbors, family members, etc. I fully believe that if this is happening, there is
growth! People need hope! In the meantime we
need to cut cost by joining forces. To close
churches does not guarantee there will be buyers for those buildings in communities where
unemploymnet is very high! If the Methodist
church could not make it, how do we think any
other church will make it? Or do they have
a better product? We need to search our hearts
and especially the Lord for the real answers!
Nancy | May 3, 2009 | Reply
Pastor Adam,
Your article and the comments that follow provided me with much insightful material for reflection.
In my small town, three of four small UM churches voted recently to merge. The anguish on all sides has been brutal and the lack of basic Christian behavior has been disappointing. I have never heard the phrase “the will of God” used as often and as haphazardly as I have since the merger issue arose.
I don’t have the answers. But I remain willing to listen, to reflect on writings such as yours, and to pray.
Scott | May 5, 2009 | Reply
I appreciate Pastor Adam’s forward-thinking approach about the denomination.
The key to the survival of the UMC is in finding an identity and that being an identity found in the Gospel. If we would be people who proclaim it to the lost for justification from sin, and remind the saved about it during sanctification, we would be obedient to God’s call on His church. We could live joyfully in that fact and let the results be up to Him.
Sadly, decline, in my opinion, is predicated in religion/morality having replaced the Gospel in our churches over the years.
My expanded thoughts can be found at the article attached to my name inn this post. We can still be that “city on a hill” and let the light of Christ shine to the world.
Larry | May 6, 2009 | Reply
Adam,
Thanks for this thoughtful reflection. It’s clear enough that we can’t keep doing the same thing and expect different results. In addition to a strong commitment to discipling, I believe we will need to take risks, get outside of ourselves, listen better, find fresh language and create new forms in which we are the community of faith.
Can an old-line institution do this? Most organizational consultants I speak with say, no. However, we’re not just an organization. If we re-think who we are as a church and who we want to be as a people in the 21st Century following Jesus, we may find energy and strength to be renewed in ways we thought impossible before.
I watched bishops meet with immigrant day workers at a Home Depot parking lot yesterday morning as part of the launch of re-think church. They listened to the stories of the workers, heard about their families, prayed with them, invited them to connect locally with the church and served them breakfast. We had church in the parking lot.
I take great hope from this, and much more. I hope your thoughts provoke the conversation to continue to rethink who we are as a connected people following Jesus.
Larry Hollon