Reader One: The Bible says that after Jesus’ baptism the Holy Spirit drove Jesus into the wilderness where Satan tempted him and angels protected him.
Reader Two: The Bible says that Moses led God’s people on a 40 year journey through the wilderness to the Promised Land.
Reader Three: The spiritual path leads through the wilderness because the wilderness is where we meet God.
Reader Four: This Lenten season we will follow the examples of Jesus, of Moses, of countless ancestors before us and step into the unmapped and unknown areas of our lives. We will examine our doubts, fears, questions, visions, possibilities, and promises for the future trusting in God to guide us. Let’s prepare our hearts for worship. The adventure begins!
Benediction
Reader One: Our hearts are rested; our souls stirred; our vision sharpened; our bodies energized. We step into the new week with courage knowing that whatever we encounter, we are not alone.
Reader Two: Go in peace to love God and share the good news of new life in Jesus!
As you all hopefully know by now, First Congregational Church of Granby will be voting to approve one of two proposals for moving forward as a congregation: 1) collaboration/consolidation with South Church or 2) downsizing. As your transitional minister I’m clear that the decision is up to the congregation, so I’ve been preparing myself for both outcomes by staying up to date with the latest in best practices. Three resources have come to my attention.
Should we end up deciding to continue on the decline trajectory, I’ve been reading Toward the Better Country: Church Closure and Resurrection by L. Gail Irwin. In case we decide to move toward collaboration/consolidation, I’ve ordered and will be reading Better Together: Making Church Mergers Work by Jim Tomberlin. If either of these books sounds interesting to you I encourage you to get a copy. If you are a podcast listener, I encourage you to listen to the latest episode of the Carey Nieuwhof Leadership Podcast (#367 with Jim Tomberlin). You can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. The more we have a common understanding of the work we’re facing the more productive our conversations will be.
Just as the path that led us to this place has been made with countless small decisions, so too, the path forward will involve many decisions along the way. My understanding of our decision on February 14 is that either way it’s not the end of the line. It’s simply a way of agreeing as a congregation that we will devote ourselves to pursuing a path in good faith one way or the other. If it’s downsizing, then we will downsize and do our best to figure out what that means for the future of our congregation. If it’s collaboration, we will do our best in good faith to make that proposal work. I’m confident that the GUCCI team has done a good job laying the groundwork for a successful consolidation, but I’m also fairly certain there will be difficult decisions and obstacles to success ahead.
No transition process is perfect. Messy and difficult is the name of the game. But that shouldn’t be too surprising. Life is messy and difficult, and church is just a particular (and peculiar, perhaps) form of life. The good news is that the process doesn’t need to be perfect to be successful! In my experience, the transition processes that have “worked” have worked because the people involved in them wanted them to work. So let’s make our best effort trusting the results to God. As the prophet Jeremiah wrote, “For surely I know the plans I have for you, says the LORD, plans for your welfare and not for harm, to give you a future with hope.”
Holy God, the world is so surprising and we know so little. Outcomes are uncertain. Threats loom. We long to bring peace to our lives, but even our best efforts often miss the mark. We upset when we meant to soothe. Sometimes speaking the truth in love results in an unpleasant reaction. Sometimes our emotions overtake us and we respond in ways that just make the situation worse. With so much beyond our control teach us to rest in your embrace. Within the swirl of events make us steadfast, kind, and compassionate. Amen.
A couple of weeks ago I wrote a column on different models of consolidation. For review, they were: assimilation, satellite, merger/restart, and “ICU.” If the goal of consolidation is to move from a decline trajectory to a growth trajectory, then the satellite and restart models offer the best possibilities. Satellite requires that a growing church “adopt” a declining church and redevelop it as a satellite location. Restart requires that two or more churches relinquish their prior identities in order to merge assets and create a new congregation.
Since that column I’ve done a little more digging for real world examples of some of these models. Below are a few examples and resources for further investigation.
Our Vitality Coach Rev. Paul Nickerson worked with three United Methodist churches that used the Restart model to create Lorrain Lighthouse UMC at a new location. The pastor who took them through this process is now retired but Paul assures me that if we inquire there are some church leaders who could share their experience. Their Web address is https://www.lorainlighthouseumc.com.
Paul also directed me to a United Methodist District Superintendent in West Virginia for information about a three church creative merger that she oversaw. I’ve sent an email and will let you know when I find out more details.
An example of a Satellite/Adoption model consolidation from the East Ohio Conference of the United Methodist Church is Garfield Memorial UMC, which adopted South Euclid UMC. The pastor of Garfield Memorial is Rev. Chip Freed (chip@garfieldchurch.org).
Learning from others’ experiences can be helpful for making informed decisions. Check out the Websites and let me know if there’s interest in setting up a call with any of these congregations. We’re not in this alone. Other congregations are successfully navigating transitions and coming out on the other side with a new lease on life!
Holy God, your Spirit calls and our hearts respond. Your Spirit calls and our world is overturned. Your Spirit calls and our spirits awaken. Your Spirit calls and our minds clear. Your Spirit calls and our bodies relax. Your Spirit calls and anxieties depart. Your Spirit calls and old ways diminish. Your Spirit calls and a new future is born. Amen.
Sunday evening, January 17, First Congregational Church of Granby engaged in a productive and enlightening conversation around two proposals for our future: one produced by the Downsizing Task Force and one produced by the Collaboration/Consolidation Task Force. I observed deep listening, careful questioning, and honest responses as we explored the proposals together.
Overall there was little disagreement, but one moment stood out for me. At one point in the discussion of the downsizing proposal, someone said, “Well, it’s clear this just isn’t going to work.” A few minutes later, someone else commenting on the downsizing proposal responded, “It is going to work.” Is it going to “work?” Isn’t it going to “work?” This is a great question for both proposals. The answer depends on what our goal is.
At the beginning of the meeting, moderator Bob Giles shared with us the now familiar church life cycle graph and reminded us that we had all agreed that as a congregation we were on the decline side of the graph heading toward death. The goal, Bob said, was to shift the congregation into a growth trajectory, in other words, to reverse the decline trend.
I understood the comment “This just isn’t going to work” in light of the goal that Bob had identified: reversing the decline trend. And to my ears, that seemed to be the unarticulated worry underlying the conversation: is simply cutting expenses really going to turn things around? Research and experience shows that it is common for churches to focus on deficits as a “problem” that needs to be “fixed.” Sometimes this is the case. But in a situation where a church has been declining over a number of years, deficits are a symptom of a deeper problem that budget cuts alone won’t fix. So in this sense, the downsizing proposal “won’t work.”
So was the person who argued that the downsizing plan will “work” wrong? Not necessarily. If the goal isn’t to reverse the decline trend but, in the words of the downsizing report, “maintain independence,” then the downsizing plan will work . . . for a while. As long as the underlying problem that set us on the decline trajectory remains unaddressed, simply cutting expenses will only prolong the decline process. The end will be the same.
What is the “underlying problem?” That would be a wonderful conversation to have. Proverbs 29:18 reads, “Where there is no vision (Hebrew: chazon), the people perish.” Bob pointed out on the church life cycle diagram that churches beginning on the growth trajectory begin with a compelling vision and continue by building relationships with people in the community. (By contrast, churches nearing the end of the life cycle have a greatly reduced vision and a primary focus on maintaining current relationships rather than building new ones.) As we consider these two proposals, we might ask, “Which captures my heart? Which provides a compelling vision for the future?” The prophet Joel wrote, “In those days young people will see visions and elders dream dreams.” What vision is God laying on your heart today?
This part two of a two-part series on “What’s Next?” at First Congregational Church of Granby. Part one focused on three different models for downsizing. This week we will focus on four different models for church consolidation.
Assimilation (along with the “ICU” model below) is one of the more common models of consolidation. Assimilation happens when a “lead” church incorporates another church’s people and assets. Key for successful assimilation is assessment of mission compatibility of the assimilated church with the lead church. Also important is a clear understanding of any liabilities the assimilated church might bring to the table. The point of assimilation is to strengthen the position of the lead church and to provide an opportunity of the assimilated church to pass on the legacy of their assests. Because of the principle of homeostasis (that is, without conscious and sustained effort, churches tend to revert to status quo) assimilations usually don’t result in significant increases for the “lead” church. A nearby example of assimilation is Wilson Congregational Church (Windsor), which in 2010 assimilated to First Church in Windsor.
Satellite is a consolidation model in which a lead church “adopts” another church. The adoptee turns over control of its assets to a lead church, which then takes responsibility for developing the adopted church as a satellite of the lead church usually providing the adoptee access to the lead church’s staff, membership, and programs. This was a model explored by First Congregational Church of Stamford as an option that would have potentially allowed them to stay in their building. Unfortunately they were not able to find a nearby UCC with the capacity to take on the congregation as a satellite. Lead churches generally need to be on a growth trajectory in order to adopt a satellite and none of the nearby UCCs were growing.
Consolidation/Restart is a model that involves two (or more!) congregations merging their assets and membership on an equal basis to create a new congregation with a new identity and mission. Though researchers are still gathering data, we can say anecdotally that this is the most promising model for consolidation. Consolidation/restart may involve a new location, new building, new name, new worship style, and/or new staffing. The governing questions are “What is our Why?” and “What of our combined resources will best support us in living out that Why?” The consolidation/restart model disrupts the status quo enough so that the consolidating congregations can move from a decline trajectory to a growth trajectory while pooling resources to more effectively live out a common mission.
ICU model. We have also talked about this as the “Titanic model.” The ICU model is another version of hospice where two declining congregations combine resources in order to keep their current members as comfortable as possible for as long as possible. Unless there is conscious effort to change the congregations’ cultures, many consolidations follow the ICU model by default. Consideration of these different models was, for example, a part of the conversations around the consolidation that formed the new Southern New England Conference of the UCC.
What other models for consolidation are you aware of?
Todd Grant Yonkman 