Structuring/Call/Vocation/Ministry in the Local United Methodist Churches
The last 24 hours I have been at an Ordering of Ministry Event discussing several changes to structures and order of ministry within the United Methodist Church. This is where my mind went…
The more I listen, the more in favor I am of a presiding Elder (perhaps even Deacon) with a team of Elder/Deacon/Provisional/Licensed Local Pastors/Associate Members/Lay pastors/Diaconate/Diaconal… Appointed to a ministry setting which includes several local churches and extension locations. The common tie would be the liturgical/lectionary/missional setting. Pool them all together to make a stronger presence. A lot of challenges here (a lot of sacred cows gotta fall) but at the same time the possibilities for being relevant in a missional setting could be astounding. Not a district, but a group of local churches in a similar local following the same liturgical/missional/worship heartbeat. More of a circuit with an educationally appointive leadership team to guide, inspire, and equip ministry in the making of Disciples of Jesus Christ. In this setting, persons who are appointed to extension ministries could also have a place at the ministry team table and provide input and help folks to see the church vocationally reaching outside of the local church. As well as engage the congregations in possible mission outreach through the extension ministry appointments. Tis was not a part of any presentation, just a model that is I think at least worth thinking about.
AND, wouldn’t it be cool if this came from the bottom up as opposed to being directed from the top down!
[...] my mind went… The more I listen, the more in favor I am of a … View full post on methodist – Google Blog Search Tagged with: Local • Methodist • Structuring/Call/Vocation/Ministry • United [...]
Structuring/Call/Vocation/Ministry in the Local United Methodist … - Christian IBD said this on May 16, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Ed, I think pooling of ministry you describe was one of the goals of the parish “clusters” (of six or eight local churches) that we tried in the Ashland District a few years ago. I believe that it’s come to nought, probably because it was put low on the list of the priorities of each local church’s leadership. I still think it’s a good idea. Not only would it empower each “cluster” to reach out in more effective ministry to its surrounding communities; it would also help prevent the “inside-the-walls” mentality so prevalent in most local churches.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Grace and peace,
Brian Moores
This sounds like a multi-site church (the goal of the church where I am a member). The key difference being that you are considering taking existing congregations and joining them, instead of reaching out from a central starting point.
I think the biggest hazard is the ‘smaller’ churches getting absorbed and losing members by the bigger ones within the cluster (members switching locations since they physically close). Or even a leadership void at some locations depending on how the clergy are assigned tasks.
I’m more a fan of a local community church (funny considering where I attend) that focuses on ministering to the needs of the immediate neighbors (the key being reaching out to the community). Then, you can still join with a larger group (the district or conference?) for a greater goal within the region or world. However, this model still leaves leadership voids… some shepherds just don’t tend the sheep.
Ultimately, the job of the church – large, small, independent, cluster, or otherwise has to stay alive by actively strengthening its members AND reaching out to serve the community and the next generation of Christians.
I don’t have the background in ministry to understand it all, but I often wonder why UM churches in an area don’t work more closely together to make disciples. We have recently done Bible studies here and at a local coffee shop in combination with other UM churches with some success. Success was defined by participants bringing friends into the classes that were not regular church attendees. The combinations gave both churches the resourtces they did not have to do it alone. The resources may be money, teachers, location contacts or any number of things. Why do we worry more about losing members to other UM churches than we do about reaching those outside our own churches?