Mel and Steve’s Blog

Attached is a article from George Bullard on The Coming Death of National Denominations. I think it identifies several issues all of us in denominational leadership roles need to consider.  It is my personal opinion that there is and will be a need for denominations, but they must morph to stay effective. In this blog George shares some of the way this may happen.

Mel

http://columbiapartnership.typepad.com/the_columbia_partnership/2010/03/the-coming-death-of-national-denominations.html

The Coming Death of National Denominations

A Travel Free Learning Article

By George Bullard, Ministry Partner with The Columbia Partnership

Voice: 803.622.0923, E-mail: GBullard@TheColumbiaPartnership.org, Web Site: www.TheColumbiaPartnership.org

Many national denominational organizations in North America are dying. The causes and signs of their demise are obvious, but few are choosing to make wise decisions to morph into 21^st century denominations. Too many are choosing to recommit to old patterns or suicidal patterns of denominational life.

The death of national denominations is not imminent; it is not coming in the next five to ten years. However, if current trends continue some national denominations could reach subsistence level within 25 years. The death of national denominational structures does not necessarily mean the death of the denomination itself or its regional or middle judicatory expressions. These latter expressions may thrive in some locations.

Here is a beginning list of things national denominations are failing to do or succeeding in doing to drag themselves down. What would you add to this list?

Denominations are dying because of their failure to do the following things.

First, they are failing to renew themselves, and sustain vitality and vibrancy, by being catalysts for the starting a number of new congregations each year equal to at least three percent of the number of congregations affiliated with it at the beginning of the year. Without a high priority focus on new congregations, national denominations are missing two factors.

1. Sufficient numerical growth in affiliated congregations and adherents to offset the loss of congregations and adherents through congregations who are dying, declining, or dis-affiliating.

2. Increased vitality and vibrancy throughout the denomination that comes through the excitement surrounding new congregations and the challenge they offer to existing congregations to be more intentional about their ministry.

Second, they are failing to help their leading edge of faithful, effective, and innovative congregations to soar and fully express their spiritual gifts, strengths, and skills. These congregations are generally 10 to 15 percent of the total number of congregations affiliated with the denomination, but may account –along with new congregations—for at least 50 percent of the new adherents in the denominations.

Denominations assume these congregations do not need or want their help rather than realizing they want high quality peer learning experiences than the vast majority of denominations are offering. They would love to help their denomination soar, and they yearn for their denomination to understand and celebrate their situation.

Third, they are failing to help only those congregations who are ready and eager to transform to go through transformation processes. Instead they are trying to help any plateaued and declining congregation who asks for help regardless of their capacity to benefit from the assistance or their readiness for transformation. Further, they define transformation as a healthy, faithful congregation rather than one that is also effective and innovative in fulfilling their mission and vision and thus becoming more vital and vibrant. Thus, they have lowered their expectations of congregations. Faithfulness has become a euphemism for mediocrity.

Fourth, perhaps worse than ineffective service to congregations is the diminishing of an emphasis on serving congregations, or helping to create and sustain more vital and vibrant congregations. Over the past several decades numerous denominations have decreased their efforts through staff, budget, and resource materials that focus on church planting, church growth, and church transformation. Some national denominations have one office or department that seeks to handle all three of these emphases. Denominations are forgetting that congregations are their basic building block and why they exist in the first place.

From another perspective, national denominations are trying to serve congregations through old concepts that assume national denominations do for congregations what congregations cannot do for themselves. This is a gapology approach that no longer works. The number of things congregations are dependent on their denomination to do are less and less.

Fifth, they are failing to jettison their institutions from core denominational financial support and ownership through trustees appointed or elected by the national denomination. Over the past five decades many, if not most, colleges/universities, seminaries/divinity schools, benevolent institutions, and other institutional entities have developed multiple funding streams and are not longer dependent on the national denominational budget for their survival and vitality.

Wise national denominations are withdrawing core operational funding and creating partnerships with their institutions in strategic areas of need for the denomination, and funding those on a renewable project basis. Institutions that cannot survive without funding from the national denomination for core operations may not need to exist in the 21^st century.

Denominations are dying because of their success in doing the following things.

First, many national denominations are demanding loyalty rather than earning loyalty. Congregations who respond to the call for more loyalty tend not to be the growing, vital, and vibrant congregations, but rather are the plateaued, declining, and passive congregations. Dying denominations are successful in reinforcing the myth that congregations exist to serve the denomination.

Second, many national denominations are professionalizing, formalizing, and centralizing their clergy education, credentialing, and support systems in an attempt to achieve a purer and more effective collection of clergy leaders. This approach certainly provides more control and creates more dependency among the clergy leaders, but is does not necessarily produce purer or more effective clergy leaders. It may also result in a lack of sufficient new clergy leaders, as persons called into clergy ministry seek out denominational families with a more open and flexible system.

Third, some national denominations have become experts at dividing and driving away congregations and adherents by badly addressing explosive moral and theological issues. The big ones these days focus around sex—homosexuality, promiscuity, and pedophilia. When national denominations combine with sex the issues around clergy ordination and discipline—or lack thereof—it creates an “ensmallment” movement within the denomination.

Fourth, many national denominations believe that restructuring themselves or re-tasking national agencies is the same thing as renewing the spiritual, strategic direction of the national denomination. No consistent evidence exists that restructuring national denominations alone leads to the renewal of these denominations. Restructuring actually is a step in preparing for another restructuring within five to ten years. Restructuring fits in the same category as rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.

Fifth, many national denominations continually reallocate their core funding stream receipts from congregations rather than looking for innovative ways to increase the generosity of adherents and congregations. They have a basic funding stream or two that they have had for several decades rather than an innovative plan involving at least 12 funding streams. The reallocation is in response to a decreased buying power of the funds coming from congregations, and like restructuring leads to the next reallocation.

Important Things to Know

George Bullard is a Ministry Partner with The Columbia Partnership. He is also General Secretary [executive director] of the North American Baptist Fellowship of the Baptist World Alliance. The Columbia Partnership is a non-profit Christian ministry organization focused on transforming the capacity of the North American Church to pursue and sustain Christ-centered ministry. Travel Free Learning is a leadership development emphasis. For more information about products and services check out the web site at www.TheColumbiaPartnership.org, send an e-mail to Client.Care@TheColumbiaPartnership.org, or call 803.622.0923.

Tags:   DenominationsNo Comments