The church recently concluded a study of more than 32,000 Methodist congregations across North America, seeking the “key factors impacting vital congregations.” The study surveyed everybody from bishops to district superintendents to people in the pews.
Working with New York-based Towers Watson consultants, researchers constructed a “vitality index” to measure each church and concluded “that all kinds of UMC churches are vital — small, large, across
geographies, and church setting.”
The report identified four key areas that fuel vitality: small groups and programs; worship services that mix traditional and contemporary styles with an emphasis on relevant sermons; pastors who work hard on mentorship and cultivation of the laity; and an emphasis on effective lay leadership.
These four factors “are consistent regardless of church size, predominant ethnicity, and jurisdiction,” the study concluded.
I think this presents an interesting case of possible sample bias. They only surveyed Methodist churches, so the sample is skewed to people who think and act just like they do. The UMC hierarchy has no interest other than institutional interest. It’s no coincidence that “healthy” churches most likely pay all their apportionments to support the ecclesiastical hierarchy.
The most pernicious problem in the UMC is that the cleritocracy is wildly out of touch with the laity. They are far more liberal and socialistic, and far less orthodox in their beliefs, in general. I think what the UMC hierarchy most wants are healthy liberal, social works justification congregations that will happily pour money into the denominational coffers to support things like the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and the latest apostasy, denominational funding of Claremont School of Theology’s interdenominational (Methodist, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.) seminary program. Claremont’s president was recently quoted as telling Christians that it is wrong for them to proselytize non-Christians.
You may be right, Daniel (#1), but I’d still be interested in checking out this expensive report anyway. In particular, the conclusion that it’s the combination of all four of those factors they highlighted that results in the most vital and healthy churches is a significant insight. And I’d be especially interested in how vital, growing churches went about that fourth thing, developing lay leadership. As an enthusiastic supporter of both Abingdon’s DISCIPLE program (brainchild of the evangelical former UMC bishop Richard Wilke) and the Emmaus Walk (Cursillo) movement, I wonder how many of those vital churches used one or both of those methods of raising up more and stronger lay leaders.
But the UMC would’ve been wiser, and they could’ve saved themselves a bundle, by just hiring their own Lyle Schaller to do this study. The prolific Schaller, author of more than 40 books, may be retired, but he’s still the most brilliant analyst of church life in America. I’d trust him a lot more than some high-priced secular consultants.
David Handy+
#1. The devil is in the details. Was this a qualitative vs. quantitative study? Who exactly in the UMC commissioned the work? What was the goal or purpose of the study? What was the methodology used in the study? When will the data be made available? How are the results to be used and for what larger purpose? I just sent an email to my Church asking most of these questions for the purposes of Strategic Planning.
#2. I would like to believe that my UMC is among the vital category in the study. ASA 1100-1200 (minus kids), we about to open a new larger sanctuary. I resonated with comments on the Disciple program which I am a product of and feel that it was absolutely instrumental in moving me from merely attending church to a more intentional and consistent approach to living like Christ. As vital as I think we are in my Church we are still woefully deficient in getting people to “Disciple” and not just through the door. I suspect the UMC is not alone in this.
Thanks for that testimony, palagious (#4). I’ve taught the Disciple program myself (in an Episcopal Church), and I’m glad that it’s now being rejuvenated or expanded with a “second generation” of materials, starting with Leander Keck’s admirable course on [b]Jesus in the Gospels[/b] (which I highly recommend!).
But of course, your hunch is right. The UMC is most definitely not alone in its struggles. All the so-called “mainline” churches are, as you say, [i]woefully deficient[/i] in turning attenders into real followers of Christ and then into active servants of the Master. Personally, I think it’s the bane of the inherited (but obsolete) Christendom way of operating in a post-Christendom era. Or to put it another way, people can’t disciple others or even lead them to saving faith in Christ if they’ve never been discipled themselves.
Keep growing, palagious. And may your Methodist church become more vital and vibrant than ever.
David Handy+
Thanks for the encouragement.
The only Disciple course I haven’t completed is the Jesus in the Gospels. I even co-lead Christian Believer which honestly was not my favorite.
If anyone has any ideas of how to get people to commit to a transformational 34 Week Bible Study covering the entire OT & NT let me know.
It’s important to note that the survey itself actually describes having traditional AND contemporary worship services as signs of vitality. The linked article here seems to imply a more blended approach. The survey, which can be found at the UMC homepage (http://www.umc.org/site/apps/nlnet/content3.aspx?c=lwL4KnN1LtH&b=2454759&ct=8519035¬oc=1), actually states that keeping these “forms” of worship separate seem to be best for congregational vitality. The “blended” approach is actually discouraged.
In terms of the Disciple program, I join everyone here in recommending it to any congregation, Methodist or not.
From the UMC website: http://www.umc.org/atf/cf/{db6a45e4-c446-4248-82c8-e131b6424741}/CV_PRESENTATION.PDF
try this one: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-study-identifies-key-factors-impacting-vital-congregations-98253834.html
#7
Thanks for clearing that up. I’ve long advocate against “blended” services. By definition they are “contemporary,” in that they are no longer traditional.