Changing the Conversation
Chapter 9: Death and Resurrection
(Part 1 of 2)
By Lauren Lyon
Chapter 9 of Changing the
Conversation is entitled “Death and Resurrection.” It includes two case
studies of churches in the Seattle metro area and Robinson’s imaginative sketch
for a church without a building.
In the first case study, a once prominent United Church of Christ congregation makes the decision to close. Its active membership had diminished to about a dozen people whose average age was more than 80 years. Their judicatory was eager to turn their beautiful, historic building into office space for church administration, but the members of the parish approached its death with a different vision for its resurrection. They celebrated its long and productive life on a final Sunday, then the church closed for eight months.
That quiet interval was used for planning the start of a new church to serve the lively, multiethnic neighborhood surrounding the historic building. That new church was created with the advice and financial support of another UCC congregation whose early 20th century history included sponsorship of several new churches. The new church advertised itself to prospective members in the neighborhood, recruited a pastor with roots there and an ethnic background similar to a substantial proportion of its residents. The new church, named Bethany United Church of Christ, has grown steadily and remained true to the vision and identity that it adopted at the time of its opening.
The second case study was a work in progress at the time the book was written. Several mainline protestant churches in Seattle’s University District envisioned a merger in which all but one of them would sell their large and relatively empty buildings. The churches imagined pooling proceeds from the sale of their respective buildings, along with other resources, as a single merged congregation, the University Ecumenical Parish, that would be located in the remaining building. It would incorporate worship space for the entire membership of the merged congregation in addition to denominational chapels whose worship would reflect the traditions of each constituent church. The building would also house a supermarket, parking and other amenities in demand by the residents and workers in its neighborhood. It appears that this project has not yet been realized. An Internet search indicates that at this time the constituent congregations of this envisioned ecumenical church continue to operate separately in their own respective buildings.
The third model Robinson explores in this chapter is for a church without a building. He envisions a congregation that acquires administrative and small group meeting space in an office building, but worships peripatetically in borrowed churches, theatres and other public venues. Robinson characterizes this church as a “moveable feast.” He sees this model as a fit for a major urban center where real estate is impossibly expensive and a congregation’s vision is focused on a ministry of action that lends itself to work in a variety of locations. He mentions reading about a Presbyterian congregation operating on this model in New York, but an Internet search did not reveal its identity.
Robinson begins the chapter by stating that some churches need to die, that, in fact, some already have died and either don’t know it or won’t acknowledge it. They offer worship on Sundays but their focus is inward on the needs of their members. Their sense of mission and vision has more to do with “hanging on” than it does with taking the gospel to the ends of the earth. He’s correct in that assessment. One of the reasons why churches continue in this condition for extended periods of time is that their viability is measured by their ability to support themselves financially. If they can reduce their costs and keep their buildings from falling in, they can go on for years until the death of a sustaining member or catastrophic building failure forces them to close. There are plenty of reasons why churches find themselves in this situation and plenty of reasons why nothing is done to change it.
Robinson’s first example of the “resurrected” congregation, Bethany UCC, did some very specific things that gave it a good chance to thrive. Its founding leadership team were determined to look forward, not back. The members of the closed congregation who took part in that group were there because of their knowledge about the neighborhood – not to represent the interests of the congregation they had belonged to. Bethany UCC is deeply and intentionally rooted in that neighborhood. I’m sure it welcomes people who want to drive in from somewhere else for the unique experience it offers, but its focus is on serving the community that surrounds the church building.
In the first case study, a once prominent United Church of Christ congregation makes the decision to close. Its active membership had diminished to about a dozen people whose average age was more than 80 years. Their judicatory was eager to turn their beautiful, historic building into office space for church administration, but the members of the parish approached its death with a different vision for its resurrection. They celebrated its long and productive life on a final Sunday, then the church closed for eight months.
That quiet interval was used for planning the start of a new church to serve the lively, multiethnic neighborhood surrounding the historic building. That new church was created with the advice and financial support of another UCC congregation whose early 20th century history included sponsorship of several new churches. The new church advertised itself to prospective members in the neighborhood, recruited a pastor with roots there and an ethnic background similar to a substantial proportion of its residents. The new church, named Bethany United Church of Christ, has grown steadily and remained true to the vision and identity that it adopted at the time of its opening.
The second case study was a work in progress at the time the book was written. Several mainline protestant churches in Seattle’s University District envisioned a merger in which all but one of them would sell their large and relatively empty buildings. The churches imagined pooling proceeds from the sale of their respective buildings, along with other resources, as a single merged congregation, the University Ecumenical Parish, that would be located in the remaining building. It would incorporate worship space for the entire membership of the merged congregation in addition to denominational chapels whose worship would reflect the traditions of each constituent church. The building would also house a supermarket, parking and other amenities in demand by the residents and workers in its neighborhood. It appears that this project has not yet been realized. An Internet search indicates that at this time the constituent congregations of this envisioned ecumenical church continue to operate separately in their own respective buildings.
The third model Robinson explores in this chapter is for a church without a building. He envisions a congregation that acquires administrative and small group meeting space in an office building, but worships peripatetically in borrowed churches, theatres and other public venues. Robinson characterizes this church as a “moveable feast.” He sees this model as a fit for a major urban center where real estate is impossibly expensive and a congregation’s vision is focused on a ministry of action that lends itself to work in a variety of locations. He mentions reading about a Presbyterian congregation operating on this model in New York, but an Internet search did not reveal its identity.
Robinson begins the chapter by stating that some churches need to die, that, in fact, some already have died and either don’t know it or won’t acknowledge it. They offer worship on Sundays but their focus is inward on the needs of their members. Their sense of mission and vision has more to do with “hanging on” than it does with taking the gospel to the ends of the earth. He’s correct in that assessment. One of the reasons why churches continue in this condition for extended periods of time is that their viability is measured by their ability to support themselves financially. If they can reduce their costs and keep their buildings from falling in, they can go on for years until the death of a sustaining member or catastrophic building failure forces them to close. There are plenty of reasons why churches find themselves in this situation and plenty of reasons why nothing is done to change it.
Robinson’s first example of the “resurrected” congregation, Bethany UCC, did some very specific things that gave it a good chance to thrive. Its founding leadership team were determined to look forward, not back. The members of the closed congregation who took part in that group were there because of their knowledge about the neighborhood – not to represent the interests of the congregation they had belonged to. Bethany UCC is deeply and intentionally rooted in that neighborhood. I’m sure it welcomes people who want to drive in from somewhere else for the unique experience it offers, but its focus is on serving the community that surrounds the church building.
If you look at the parish web site, you get a sense that the way this congregation worships intentionally reflects the ethnic mix of its parishioners. It doesn’t appear that they do much with “traditional” worship with hymns, pipe organ and traditional vestments – and other liturgical options they might have offered in the hope of attracting a wider range of parishioners. They’ve chosen to build community in a fairly small, geographically defined area by offering a distinctive and specific worship and community experience rather than trying to maintain a liturgical and interpersonal smorgasbord.
At the time Robinson’s book was written he reported that the congregation had 150 adult members and about 50 children. My guess is that it will never be a huge congregation, but size in itself is an outdated measure of a church’s health and effectiveness. Robinson notes that the new parish was started with a pledge of support from its sponsoring congregation of $50,000 annually for the first five years with the opportunity to renew. There’s no way to know whether that support continues or if the new church is now financially self-sustaining. In an age of scarce resources, financial independence is often considered a major element in the definition of a congregation’s success. There’s no way to know whether Bethany UCC is held to that standard now or will be in the future. In the first two decades of the 21st century we’re seeing a move back toward what is smaller, more local and more specialized. Bethany UCC is an example of a church that appears to have thrived in that model and truly served its home neighborhood. One of the critical questions for the future is whether churches that follow its lead can find a way to maintain the resources they need to sustain their ministries.
An historic church building was a critical component of Bethany UCC’s “resurrection.” Productively repurposing that building was a high priority for the dying congregation and the local judicatory. Frequently historic church buildings are simply maligned for the unsustainable burden they place on a congregation rather than praised for their potential ability to anchor a neighborhood, enhance streetscape and sense of place, and invite the surrounding community to reflect on its history. The dying congregation that relinquished the building had rented it to other religious groups. Robinson indicates that Bethany UCC curtailed those rentals in order to make the building available for its congregation’s use, but its web site indicates that the building is available to be rented, a creative way to build revenue and share space.
The Rev. Lauren Lyon serves as Rector at Trinity Episcopal Church, Iowa City, Iowa.
No comments:
Post a Comment