CGGC Director of Church Development
The CGGC is in the early stages of looking for a new Director of Church Development. While I have no inside knowledge of this position, my guess is that he/she will have primary oversight over denominational projects involving church renewal and church planting. Since this blog explores "what [the] church will look like as fresh expressions in the 21st century" I think it is appropriate to discuss this position in this forum. Many of the "fresh expressions" of the Christian faith emerge in the midst of new church plants and renewed congregations. Since many have commented that this blog is read by a variety of people within our denomination, this is an open way to discuss the future of our denomination.
A few questions to consider:
- What role does/should a denominational office(r) have over local church and conference renewal projects?
- What should the agenda for this person contain?
- Should a CGGC "insider" be considered, or should someone from the outside be given priority?
- How would our denomination react to a woman serving in this role?
- What educational requirements should be considered (if any)?
- Which task is more difficult: planting a new church or renewing an existing one?
- Do you have any thoughts on the names of individuals who should be considered for the position?
- Feel free to add your own questions...
I am posting this on my own and have not seen a job description (if one exists). I, along with many others, received the following letter as an email forward.
- - - - - - - -
SEARCHING FOR A NEW CGGC DIRECTOR OF CHURCH DEVELOPMENT
Greetings to everybody across the General Conference
I trust your celebration of Christ’s advent is going well and that your church and community are responding well to the gospel proclamation of Luke 2:10-12. Christmas is the number one time (even more than Easter) when unchurched people are most open to the gospel. So, through your various activities and services I pray that the light of Christ may shine upon all who come. I urge us all as shepherds to be intentional in our welcome and follow-up to this seasonal visitation so that not one potential lamb may be lost.
I am specifically writing to ask for your prayers as we begin the search for a new Director of Church Development at the CGGC office. The committee (David Green, Mary Lehman, Bob Stephenson and I) met recently to lay out the process. Our first phase will be to identify potential persons for this position by March 1st. You can help here too. If you or someone you know would consider God’s call to this work, please contact Dave Green (see below) and he will send out an invitation and information packet. The next phase will be to receive applications from those who choose to respond to the invitation. After that the committee will prayerfully and carefully consider each candidate in order to discern the Lord’s leading and identify the person to be selected. So, pray for the committee, possible names to submit and for the selection process.
If you have questions or anything you think might help in the search process, feel free to contact me by phone or mail (email too). Have a blessed Christmas and thanks for your prayerful support in our search process. Godspeed!
Pastor Ed Rosenberry
Executive Director, CGGC
(419) 424-1961
director@cggc.org
Pastor David Green
700 East Melrose Avenue
P.O. Box 1132
Findlay, Ohio 45839
(419) 423-7694
glcdirector@cggc.org
Labels: Denomination
posted by Brent C Sleasman at 1:22 PM
34 Comments:
Brian wrote: "...but I wonder if that is part of what is emerging -- decentralized missions"
This is a good point. I also see people gathering around a common purpose as opposed to a common heritage. This reminds me of an experience from several years ago. I was talking with another pastor in our community when I told him that I felt I had more in common with him (a Presbyterian)than other CGGC pastors because he and I were called to the serve within the same community. He didn't understand.
Based upon Brian's comment, an additional question is this: How can an incoming, centralized, officer of the CGGC stay on the cutting edge of decentralized ministry opportunities?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Since I posted the original comments, I'll take a shot at responding to your question.
Yes, I think that there are many people who are hopeful that this position will provide more opportunities for effective ministry in our denomination. Perhaps it will be most effective if the person works with each individual region to encourage more grass-roots renewal/planting projects. Of course, that is based mostly upon my own experiences.
P.S. Anonymous posts are not allowed on this blog. (Read the posted Guidelines.)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't know if people care or not. The CGGC is combining two former positions into one.
The first is the Church Renewal position, which hasn't been filled for some time, and when it was filled, it was filled with men who have my utmost respect, and yet not much appeared to happen. Since these were quality men, it makes me wonder whether the culture they worked in allowed them to be fruitful.
The other position is the Church Planting position, which lost traction long before the last staff person left.
So both of these position have been open for quite a while. Have they been sorely missed? Unfortunately no.
Of course some good things have happened because of these positions, but I am hoping for so much more.
IMHO, the position will have to be network heavy, inspirational, and grassroots oriented. The longer we wait to network (there is a disconnection among much of the CGGC), the harder it will be to create.
Brian said,
"IMHO, the position will have to be network heavy, inspirational, and grassroots oriented. The longer we wait to network (there is a disconnection among much of the CGGC), the harder it will be to create."
Ken says: I think that sounds kind of like the fellow that we have at the top making the decisions right now (Ed Rosenberry).
So I guess that I will just trust him (as well as the others that he consults with) in making the decision that will be made concerning the new position.
That they will make the appropriate decision, I have no doubt.
Course my thinking is probably just well antiquated??
Ken,
I hope you aren't assuming that my initial post was driven by any distrust of the denominational leaders.
If I remember correctly, you (and others) have suggested that this blog is read by many within our denomation.
While I appreciate your trust, why don't you share some thoughts about how you think this position could contribute to a more effective CGGC? The decisions that are made can only be as effective as the information the leaders are working with.
After reading Brian's qualifiers an image of the ideal candidate began to emerge (emerge with a small e) and it was Barnabas. We need a Barnabas-like candidate for the job.
He was "network heavy, inspirational, and grassroots oriented". He was able to go to Antioch, the first emerging church, and support and encourage it while also supporting the ministry in Jerusalem. And let us not forget how he helped John Mark who later wrote a story of Jesus read to this day.
Do we have any Barnabii (Is that the plural of Barnabas?) available.
IMO, if we can locate a Barnabas the position would be well filled.
I have thoughts Brent,
But my thoughts are just that...
Ken Zitsch's thoughts
Which don't really matter to much in the scheme of things.
Perhaps, I should clarify something...
My trust is not necessarily geared toward any individual(s). I just think that Ed fits the criteria that Brian suggested above. So I don't see any reason to believe that Ed won't look for someone like-minded. And I believe that the final decision on the person and the position must come from Ed. In the end, he will be the one to account for the work that was done. Ed is a godly man who will seek to do the best he can do.
I will not go into specifics because I really feel that it would be inappropriate, but if I were asked, I would do things in a completely different way than what I've seen since I came into this denomination. I believe in my heart that the wrong things are emphasized.
But, once again, that is just my opinion, I will leave it at that. Chances are I don't know what I'm talking (thinking) about.
The questions that you presented had a couple that were relevant, but there were a few that are not appropriate to ask. The biggest question to ask is... What does God want for the CGGC? Until we get on our knees and discover that, we will continue to just spin our wheels.
IMHO (cowardly me)
Ken,
Which questions do you consider inappropriate to ask?
Perhaps I can provide a brief reason why I felt that is an important question to consider.
I agree that we must begin with what God wants. BUT, even when that is discovered there is much work to be done.
Thanks.
Brent,
If you must know:
- What role does/should a denominational office(r) have over local church and conference renewal projects?
Ken's obs: Why are these positions duplicated at the regional/denominational levels to begin with? IMHO this seems to imply some level of distrust at the various levels.
- What should the agenda for this person contain?
Ken's obs: The agenda should be based on the vision that Ed Rosenberry has for the denomination. Obviously, Ed will develop this vision in consultation with others.
- Should a CGGC "insider" be considered, or should someone from the outside be given priority?
Ken's obs: Why would we even consider someone from the outside? Are there no qualified persons here? If that is the case then we have quite a problem.
- How would our denomination react to a woman serving in this role?
Ken's obs: a non-issue
- What educational requirements should be considered (if any)?
Ken's obs: My thoughts here I will keep to myself. If you want some idea of how I think though, I would not even have imagined myself serving as a Pastor unless I had gone to school.
- Which task is more difficult: planting a new church or renewing an existing one?
Ken's obs: Why does this matter? And even if the answer is considered, I would suggest that the work should be weighted toward that hard work that needs to be done-we all know what that is! (preceeded of course by prayer).
- Do you have any thoughts on the names of individuals who should be considered for the position?
Ken's obs: No, but I would hope that Ed does.
You asked :), I hope you don't find my obs offensive. (I'm sorry-I won't take them back if you do)
blessings
Ken,
I think you raise several interesting points. Hopefully some others will comment as well.
In theory, we are a somewhat hierarchical denomination - perhaps a "semi-presbyterial polity" may even be a fair description. But in practice, I see many who lean toward congregationalism. Therefore, I am not sure that your heavy emphasis upon one person's leadership and vision is going to be most effective in our denomination.
I am NOT questioning the integrity or leadership ability of Ed Rosenberry. What I am questioning is the ability of a centralized office to impact a somewhat localized mindset.
Obviously my experience is limited within the CGGC as far as geography is concerned. So others may have a different perspective.
So while I agree that Ed (and others in CGGC leadership) should have names in mind, this top down thinking may be the very undoing of any effective ministry at the start of the new person's term.
I'll go back to what Brian wrote, and what Lew called a "Barnabas-like candidate": "someone...to be network heavy, inspirational, and grassroots oriented. The longer we wait to network (there is a disconnection among much of the CGGC), the harder it will be to create."
Again, I appreciate your thoughts and did not find them offensive at all.
If in fact, CGGC is looking for a networking type person to energize some grassroots type ministries, then the input of many is a good sign for the denomination that such a person could be effective. In other words, a person could be lifted up to lead such a movement rather than be appointed to start such a movement. And in fact, Ed has asked for names.
Brent said,
"In theory, we are a somewhat hierarchical denomination - perhaps a "semi-presbyterial polity" may even be a fair description. But in practice, I see many who lean toward congregationalism."
Very good! You accurately discern one of a few problems (I alluded to above)that I perceive and disagree with in the denomination.
You might disagree with me here, but I am dead-set against "congregationalism."
In fact-that is not our polity.
The problem is that we have to much fallen into an "American" mindset and confused the "Kingdom" with a democracy.
I would suggest that God's Kingdom is not a democracy at all. And until we dispense with that unfortunate mindset we are destined to be ineffective.
I will leave it at this Brent, but there are people in our denomination who have established their fiefdoms and do not want anyone impinging on their territory. The fact is that no one of us is allowed to believe that we can operate autonomously. As soon as you become a member(part) of the Churches of God it is no longer about Me. It becomes about us. You can no longer do your own thing, likewise, you can no longer guard your own territory.
I would suggest that we in the Churches of God need to give up owr own agendas, and submit to the agenda of God. We also need to come together in prayer. We need to agree as to what God's Word says. We also need to submit to a more centralized (what I see as biblical) form of leadership. Paul waqs accountable to the leadership in Jerusalem. I'm not saying this needs to be etched in stone, but we need to "let go" of power. Power corrupts and I see more often than not corruption. The Bible points clearly in the Old Testament as well as thwe New toward the concept of "eldership." We have believed tha in the past, and we need to uphold that form in the future. We are not a corporation or anything like that. Until we suspend this wordly form of thinking, we will continue to be the same small denomination striving frustratedly into the 22nd century (if we survive that long).
We need to become more transparent in what it is (as a denomination) we are trying to accomplish. Leadership needs to become more accountable to the larger body in accomplishing what has been put forth as resonable goals.
I do not (as you can see) put much emphasis on de-centralized. Not to imply that this is the case in every situation, nor even in most situations, but I see this whole idea as nothing more than American "lone rangerism". The fact is that the Bible teaches that "you are accountable to me, and I am accountable to you." That goes theologically, ministerially, expansionally, the whole ball of wax.
That is my opinion. :)
As a younger member in the Churches of God I feel like this can bring a lot of positive changes for churches old and new.
Having attended a traditional church in the Eastern Region, I saw room for a lot of growth.
A lot of older churches are unsure how to respond to these drops in attendance and resources... so they just don't. This is where this director can be of use.
Church planting is important to us, but if we can renew churches that have not completely died yet, that is even better, and we do need to equip the leaders of these churches with the capabilities to make these changes.
Also I would have to say that this person must be a visionary, flexible and able to make change happen. So whether they are CGGC or not, their heart must be focused on change for Christ and the Church and not just for the CGGC.
Orange Faith,
I would agree with you wholeheartedly, but I would add to your last comment that the Church and the CGGC should not be looked upon as mutually exclusive. But I would say that in the process of nurturing disciples, we might find that they would do better in another place than the CGGC. There is no shame in saying, "This is not the place for me."
Ken,
I completely agree that the church is not a democracy. But there is definitely a disconnect between the way church should be (according to this interpretation) and the way it actually exists within our denomination.
Whoever fills this new CGGC post will have to bridge the gap between how some churches & pastors currently function and how the church should truly be structured.
You may or may not be surprised that I am not against many forms of hierarchy and strong top-down leadership. But if this new person (or any leader within the church structure) attempts to "bring the hammer down" on local congregations, his/her tenure will be short.
Also, from my experience there is a disconnect between local regions and the denomational office. I served on our regional Church & Ministry Development commission. It was not a healthy working relationship with the person who served the role within the CGGC headquarters. This may not have been due to distrust as much as a personality clash.
Thanks for interacting with the question. I am hopeful (and perhaps naive) to believe that someone reading these conversations will be helped as this new position develops.
Your welcome Brent,
I know that in fact there is that disconnect that you are talking about.
That is why I responded to your point above by noting that there is work being done at the denominational level that is duplicated at the regional level.
I don't want to seem to be judgmental, but it really does seem to me that there is an unwillingness to submit to authority in many places throughout our denomination.
This costs us resources that we do not really have as a denomination. My friend, there are churches out here that are struggling (I Pastor one of them). The reason that this church is struggling is part a function of their own fault (thinking of themselves as a semi-autonomous unit), and a function of conference negligence (allowing them to think that it was permissible to think of themselves in that way).
Now we (denominationally speaking) have a mess.
You may have some idea now as to why I seem so mean-spirited even on this blog. I am in fact not that way. I very much agree with alot of what these emerging(emergent) pastors say about what is wrong with the church. The problem is that I do not agree with them on how to fix things.
We need strong leadership to step up in this denomination. Strong leadership is biblical leadership. We need Pastors to better understand their role within the churches. They need to have a real strong sense of their calling. They need to get to a place within their own congregation and be able to say: "Thus sayeth the LORD." They also need to embrace the idea that the church does not serve to benefit them. YOU see a disconnect between local regions and the denominational offices; I see a disconnect between Pastors and their congregations. The Pastor is NOT the king in the church, he/she is just another one of the body. Until they get rid of that imperial mindset and start doing the hard work of equipping the other saints in their ministries, that disconnect will remain.
I need the next director of church development to be of the sort that can sit down with me and this congregation that I serve and evaluate realistically where we are as a church, and where we need to be. Right now I serve a fractured congregation that has just recently undergone the horrors of a split. The thing is though there is still the rudiments of what is necessary to be successful in this place (we can define success later). We (the congregation and I) need leadership. It bothers me greatly to see the denomination out there putting resources into new church plants, when there is work to be done right here. There are people that need to be saved right here. Something is wrong with this picture. And it needs to be fixed.
In any case-de-centralization is not the answer. This denomination has been there, done that and it has caused enough problems. We need more centralization, and we need the men of God to have the anointing to stand up and say it.
We talk about John Winebrenner and stuff-the fact is that you don't have to be much of a church historian to know that John Winebrenner would have gotten in somebody's face and told them that they needed to get their act together. John Winebrenner did not compromise with the truth. You can read his pamphlets and see from his preaching that he had a very strong sense of what needed to be done, and he had the calling to see that it was done. He was not hesitant about telling you that you were wrong. I would suggest that we need leadership today that exemplifies those qualities.
IMHO
Thanks Brent my friend (sorry for rambling)
The idea of decentralization is interesting. In fact, I do not mean "do your own thing." I mean that the Spirit more often blows locally than across a large organization. Therefore, the new director of Church Development becomes a fire-starter or at least throws some gas on it when he/she sees it, then networks throughout the denomination to see if he/she can spread that fire.
And that is exactly why church planting becomes crucial. Fires are more easily set in the plant setting. The problem in the past has been zero networking. (I'm speaking from a Midwest vantage point.) Plants should inspire and improve existing churches, which should have been networked into coming along side the birth process. And the existing churches should provide some stability and even an orthodoxy check for the plants.
When we think about the early church, Paul submitted to Jerusalem leadership, but most of the time he was out of the edges starting fires. And these church starts on the edges breated new life into the Jerusalem church and even aided them through difficult times.
IMHO, some churches that appear to have lost any remaining embers must be sparked by a church that is aflame. Trying to restart a fire that is completely doused is much more difficult than catching fire from another.
Brian said,
"When we think about the early church, Paul submitted to Jerusalem leadership, but most of the time he was out of the edges starting fires. And these church starts on the edges breated new life into the Jerusalem church and even aided them through difficult times."
Although I'm not sure that is quite like I read it (the analogy might be overstated), I would say that you have captured something there.
Maybe the issue here isn't about "centralization" versus "decentralization" at all, maybe the issue is about trust. Maybe it is that we are to submit to each other and come together to accomplish a common purpose. By the way-that purpose is to promote the Gospel. In doing so, that requires us to gain a clear sense of our roles. which in turn implies a level of trust allowing us to accomplish what the Lord would have us to accomplish, individually, as well as corporate.
This is why the Word needs to be put first and emphasized in all of this. You see, I have been involved in this vocation learning and doing for about 11-12 years now, and I gotta be honest with you, all I have really seen promoted are people's opinions. When I was in seminary, the rage was Rick Warren's and Bill Hybel's seeker models for churches. We have come to see by at least one of their own admissions that they were "wrong."
These days we see a form of church developing that is supposed to cross the divide toward "postmoderns" (which really is not any different than "seekers."); the problem is that the church is not about any of these things. Actually the Church is not about people at all, it is about God. The Church is populated by those who are called out by God to serve and worship Him.
I am not interested in any ONE's theory of church and how it should be done. I have dedicated my life to God and His theory of how things should be done. Maybe Brian, things can be just as you say, but with the understanding (biblically so) that the authority is to be found in "Jerusalem." Notice in 2 Corinthians that Paul made sure that the offering got to Jerusalem. Paul was never acting independently of Jerusalem. He never thought of himself as promoting any other Gospel other than the one that had started to come forth on the day of Pentecost. He had never thought of himself "creating a new thing." He was just making the old thing better understood.
That is what we need to do today-we need to make the old thing better understood. The problem as I see it is not theological. The problem is anthropological. We need to encourage some people and their personalities, as well as their own personal agendas and worldviews, to get out of the way.
Then you will see people working together as equals, yet with the understanding that they serve different roles. I have the role of "Pastor." What I am doing is not anything positional with regard to anyone else. What I am doing is not anything more or less than what God has called me to do that isn't any better than anyone else. While someone else might have the role is of "church development coordinator," or "church planter"; they are nothing except what God has called them to be. We need to get people and their egos out of the way.
Another thing that needs to exist is "accountability." You look for instance at your church plant- what you have seen accomplished there is a result of the giving and prayers of a whole lot of other people. What you do there, what you teach there, needs to be able to withstand the scrutiny of the people (looking through a spiritual lense) that working together made it possible for you to be there. Now, understand, I'm not suggesting that you must please everybody, but what I will say is this: When all is said and done, people should be able to look at your church and see the values reflected of those who made it possible for you to be there. Certainly we ought to be able to call it "Church of God"
This is accountability. The new director of Church Development ought to be able to hold your (and my) feet to the fire for what we are doing in the name of the kingdom. If we will not allow that, then we need to be "out."
I join Brent, I hope that we are moving in a more biblical direction. I believe something is afoot, but I'm not yet convinced that it is altogether good. Time will tell, we'll just have to wait and see. There is alot of repenting that needs to be done. It remains to be seen whether the love of the Lord is strong enough among God's people to permit this.
Ken,
"...there are people in our denomination who have established their fiefdoms and do not want anyone impinging on their territory."
Yikes, man!
That's a stark and a potentially baneful assertion on the state of our fellowship. I truly hope that you are wrong.
But, if your assertion is true, it can not be ignored. It certainly will have to be taken into account in the decision regarding the hiring the Director of Church Development.
Since you have made the assertion, I think you need to break it down and be a little bit more specific. I don't think that the naming of names would be appropriate for this forum. But, since you see people operating fiefdoms in the CGGC as a problem, how do you see that incarnating itself?
In the ministries of certain pastors or congregations?
In the way the General Conference itself or individual staff people conduct their ministries? (Again, please don't name names.)
In the way one or more of the Regions or some of the regional staff people or regional Commissions operate?
Are there underground networks, for instance this Emerging Church community, who are setting up fiefdoms?
In some other ways?
I do not see this as a significant problem in the CGGC. But, since you do and have gone to the trouble of making the assertion, please fill us in, in a generic way, on what concerns you.
-------------------------------
To the rest of you,
I'm surprised that Ken's assertion has gone unchallenged up to this point.
As I've indicated, I disagree with it.
However, it occurs to me that it is possible that the reason no one has challenged Ken is that the rest of you agree with him--that it is commonly believed, as Ken asserts, that "there are people in our denomination who have established their fiefdoms and do not want anyone impinging on their territory."
Is that true? Is Ken's sense so commonplace that I'm the only one who objects to it?
If so, I ask of all of you the same questions I have posed to Ken.
Bill,
As I indicated to Brent,
That is as far as I intend to go with it.
As scripture says:
"Examine thyself"
By the way, I apply that to myself and find myself wanting in many ways.
You yourself have alluded to this on this blog in many ways, go back and read your posts. You accused many of us of "Just not caring"
Why would that be the case, Bill?
Bill, I agree with you that Ken should get more specific, without giving names. So Ken--Can you give a few hints?
Are we talking about church fiefdoms, commission fiefdoms, philosphical fiefdoms? I think it would really be helpful to hear something specific. If you prefer, send me an email and we can discuss this.
As to whether it is easier to renew or plant, I am reminded of an Arab proverb. It is always easier to ride a camel in the direction it is already going. I think that is true of established churches--but if you ride long enough you may get the camel to turn. Are pastored committd enough to stay with a church long enough? Are we willing to pay the price of long pastorates? I ask these questions standing in front of a mirror.
Lew,
I initially raised the question of the difficulty of pastoring established churches in comparison to a church plant due to my own experience. I've done both - and I'll be the first to admit that neither project developed the way I had hoped.
Perhaps this is a trick question. Attempting to plant a church is so very different from attempting to renew/transform an established congregation. I am not even sure if the two can be compared (although the two are closely connected).
That brings us back to the issue of the new Director of Church Development. It will take a special person to oversee both aspects - planting and renewal.
I'll be seeing you at that meeting next week Lew, If you still want to talk about it there, we can. Actually, I'm quite sure that you and I have already touched on some of it, as I recall, as recently as this past Monday. You can see some of what I'm referring to when we discussed the longevity of Pastors in the "Central District."
There are no grand conspiracies. Alot of what I see is nothing but human nature. It is what it is. And the main thing is when I made the statement, IT WAS JUST MY OPINION. I'm entitled to it. I'm quite confident as I've met people particularly in this conference, my opinion is shared, Even if they may not be willing to say so.
I will not converse any more about it here. The topic under discussion was "CGGC Director of Church Development". The conversation when it was centered on that was actually quite productive. I would suggest that we get back to that.
I agree that planting and renewal are two very different callings. Although every established church in need of renewal was once a plant.
I would like to see an change in emphasis in our denomination. It seems when we say 'church plant' we mean "parachute drop". A planter is expected to raise a core group, usually in his home, and then later launch a church.
While this is one way to plant a church. Churches reproducing, or daughtering churches is another way to plant. It would allow an entire congregation to take part in the planting process. A core group from within the church could form a new body, like a mother daughtering a child. This would allow for greater assistance and accountability.
My other concern is that renewal is not emphasized as much as planting. Everyone loves it when a new baby is born but its not as much fun to care for the sick.
Many of our churches in need of renewal are in need of church discipline of some sort. Such a director must be able to skillfully wield a scalpel. Able to cut with the intent of healing.
he must also have a good bedside manner as many pastors, lay leaders, and congregations are fearful of "going under the knife".
Bret,
Give me a little time to put my thoughts into words and I'll post them. Thanks for the open and warm invitation back into the conversation... I think. LOL
Andrew,
My experience in church planting supports your comment that a shift in emphasis should occur. In 2001-2002 we were part of a church plant in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, PA. We were a parachute drop. We had strong financial support from a CGGC congregation about 1 1/2 hours away, but the distance prevented a true daughtering situation.
We initially attracted several transplated CGGC people who were more interested in the idea of a Church of God in the Pittsburgh area than the vision and purpose of this particular church plant. Many good things happened, but ultimately I pulled the plug in 2002 just under a year in the field.
Whoever takes this position needs to sit across from a failed church planter and see the look in his/her eyes. If given the opportunity, I want to hear the answer to the question "What will you do when a church plant fails?"
The best hope for the future of church planting in our denomination is in a mother/daughter church relationship.
I think a financial grant program could spur healthy churches to take the step of faith in daughtering new congregations.
This would not be a welfare system. After serving in a renewal project (funded by the Allegheny Region) I am getting closer to the belief that the dying churches should be given the opportunity to die. Give the money and time to churches who are growing.
Brent said,
"This would not be a welfare system. After serving in a renewal project (funded by the Allegheny Region) I am getting closer to the belief that the dying churches should be given the opportunity to die. Give the money and time to churches who are growing."
And who would be the judge of that Brent? I'm not being argumentatiove here or confrontational, but that is a bad idea.
You said that you have been participating in a renewal project. I would be interested to know the terms and conditions under which the aid your church received was given. Was it made known up front that there was movement toward growth expected? Did your leadership understand that it was not in fact a handout that they was being given?
There are churches that will die Brent, but I'm not sure that most of them will under the right circumstances. The Word of God can be confidently relied upon to produce results in combination with resources and such (The earth is the LORD's, and the fullness thereof). Maybe some of the resources that you received should have been human resources from a local more "successful" church. We talk about doing "mothering" situations for church plants, why can't that sort of thing be done in renewing also.
The reason that I feel strongly about this Brent is because I serve a church that if it were to receive any assistance at all could be successful in this area. Quite honestly, I get the feeling that over the years this church has been relegated to the back burner. I get hot under the collar about it. It was brought out above about "fiefdoms" and such. This is precisely one of those areas I'm talking about. There are three churches in this vicinity that have been pretty much ignored by the conference over time. This is a situation that must change. Letting churches die is not an alternative to be considered until it happens. Then and only then, can it be supposed to have happened. We (you, I, and the conference) have a responsibility until that point to do all that we can.
Just my two cents...
Ken,
"I serve a church that if it were to receive any assistance at all could be successful in this area. Quite honestly, I get the feeling that over the years this church has been relegated to the back burner. I get hot under the collar about it. It was brought out above about "fiefdoms" and such. This is precisely one of those areas I'm talking about."
Ken, as I'm sure you know, our region has a Commission on Church Renewal. Jon Neely and other Commission members have given inspiring reports during recent Conference sessions regarding the congregational ministries that have been transformed under our care. Perhaps you don't know how a congregation comes under our care. I know that there are many reports at Conference and it's easy to miss some details.
As a Pastor, you are invited each year in our Commission report to take advantage of the resources of the Commission.
Speaking as a member of the Commission, I can assure you that if you would like the ministry of your congregation to be taken under our care, we would be more than happy to discuss it with you and your leadership.
There are about 140 congregations in our Region and we have limited human resources. But we would never consider rejecting a congregation that is proactive in seeking our guidance.
You need to know that we do make our own assessment of the needs of a congregation and that you and your people would have to allow the Commission to seek renewal in your place as the Spirit's Wisdom directs us. Sometimes the solutions we recommend are radical in nature. We do have a rather impressive record. I urge you to very carefully consider the example of the Harmony Bethel and Churchtown congregations.
If you want to meet with the Commission, you can let us know through the blog. Two members of the Commission participate regularly here. We read your comments with great interest. We can work on putting you on the agenda perhaps as early as the February meeting.
Bill,
I would be glad to meet with the commission. You let me know what you need, and when you need it, and I will be there with IT.
I have never gotten the impression that the resources that seem to be available seem to be substantial. Not to seem demeaning or anything, just stating my impression. We need more than cheerleaders on the sideline going rah, rah. If I have been wrong, then I shall be delighted to be found so.
The congregation that I serve are desperately in need of help. I hope this is the road that God has provided for us to get on the track to renewal. I believe that it can happen. I can even accept it even if it is discovered that the best chance for it to happen is without me. I'm not rooting for that, but be that as it may...
Ken,
Look for an email from me in the near future which will detail some of the issues that I believe would be addressed if you met with the Renewal Commission.
bill
I think our denomination is in the midst of a time of transition.
A new CGGC Director. A new Eastern Region Director. The resignation of the Allegheny Region Director. A new CGGC Director of Church Development (which is why I posted this under this heading).
Also, on a local level, the pastor of the largest church in the Allegheny Region announced his resignation on Monday. By God's leading he is moving to another congregation in the Region that will benefit from his wisdom and experience.
To answer Dan's question - we're not dead. Just transitioning.
Post a Comment
<< Home