Now is the time for “Burger King” churches
The neighborhood church is dead. Long live the special interest church.
If you doubt that pronouncement, map where the attendees or members of your
congregation live. Also plot the locations of all churches – regardless of flavor
(i.e., denomination) – in the geographic area in which your congregation lives.
The parish system originated when the Christian Church tailored its
organization to meet the requirements of being the Roman Empire’s established religion.
Ecclesiastical and/or secular authorities divided territory into
non-overlapping, contiguous dioceses. Dioceses were subdivided into geographically
defined parishes, with a church and at least one priest assigned to each parish.
The nation states that emerged after the collapse of the Roman Empire retained
the parish system for their established Churches.
The parish model theoretically provided ministry to everyone. Ministry,
particularly in pre-printing press days, primarily consisted of administering
the sacraments, caring for the sick, burying the dead, and managing the
institution.
The parish system has two potential disadvantages. First, as population
shifts occur, church buildings and parish boundaries once tailored to fit the
population distribution may no longer align with where people live. Second, the
parish system presumes a sufficient supply of clergy to staff all of a diocese’s
parishes.
The Church of England’s Diocese of Birmingham recently proposed ending
its parish system for both of those reasons. Birmingham’s population has
migrated from rural areas to urban and suburban areas, producing an imbalance between
the location of church buildings and people. The Diocese also has too few
clergy to assign one priest to each parish.
The Episcopal Church (TEC) does not have formal geographic boundaries
for its parishes and missions. Nevertheless, TEC has functioned for most of the
last two centuries as though it had a de facto parish system. TEC divided the
nation into geographic dioceses. Dioceses often aimed, intentionally or
otherwise, to situate a parish or mission in each town, neighborhood, or other
population cluster. Each of those congregations then usually sought to develop the
finances to afford its own full-time priest, the primary distinction between parishes
and missions.
Both disadvantages of the parish system are evident in the American
context. First, population shifts from rural to urban and suburban areas have
left many once thriving congregations struggling to afford a priest and to
maintain buildings. Second, many rural congregations experience great
difficulty in calling a priest because priests generally prefer urban or
suburban living. This distribution problem is frequently misdiagnosed as a
clergy shortage.
Another factor compounds the parish system’s problems, especially in the
United States but also increasingly in the United Kingdom. We are living in a “Burger
King” culture. Individuals want everything, including religion, their own way. No
longer do people almost reflexively walk to the nearest congregation of the
faith group inherited from their parents. People want to choose where they
worship – if they attend any worships service at all. Growing numbers in both the
U.S. and U.K. now opt to identify as spiritual but not religious, agnostic, or
atheist.
Persons who do choose religion increasingly want to choose whether to
belong to a Christian church or faith community of another religion. Those who
choose Christianity then choose which flavor of Christianity they like, at
least the flavor they currently prefer, and may move from one flavor to
another. Over half of U.S. Episcopalians, for example, are not cradle
Episcopalians.
The desire to choose is so strong, that coupled with the American love
affair with the automobile, people unhesitatingly drive past one or several
congregations of the desired flavor to find a congregation that offers what
they seek in terms of worship, programs, ordained leaders’ personality style or
type, parking, etc.
The neighborhood church is on life support, if not dead.
Is there a healthy alternative to the parish system?
Intentionally becoming a destination church – what I more broadly call a
special interest church – offers a promising alternative, especially in the U.S.
where the parish system is not mandated by law.
“Destination church” is not a new concept. “Destination church” typically
connotes a church that offers something so special that it draws people from
well beyond its immediate neighborhood, analogous to how magnet schools attract
students from across a school district. English cathedrals, and often American cathedrals,
are destination churches. A large downtown congregation may be a destination
church because of its expensive, high-quality music program or some other,
probably costly, distinctive programming.
The concept of special interest church adapts the idea of a destination
church to fit congregations of all sizes and resource levels. Let’s stop
pretending that any one congregation can, or even should attempt to, minister
to everyone. Wealthy congregations, like Trinity Wall Street, will never
attract people who believe, as St. Francis of Assisi did, that walking in Jesus’
footsteps requires disavowing all worldly possessions. Large congregations, such
as St. Martin’s in Houston, will never attract people who seek the family-like
experience that comes from knowing every member of the congregation. Conversely,
small congregations cannot offer either the anonymity or diverse programming
possible in a large congregation. Not every congregation has the youth, leaders
or money to offer top-quality youth ministry.
What does your individual congregation do really well? Honest answers,
for most churches, will number only one to a half-dozen items. No congregation,
no priest, can do everything exceptionally well. To identify strengths, truthfully
compare your congregation to other congregations in the community (of all
flavors) and in the diocese. What does your congregation do so well that other
congregations could learn from it?
Paul wrote that “I have become all things to all people, that I might by
all means save some.” (1 Corinthians 9:22) Paul’s statement was clearly a
hyperbole. He could not change his race or gender. He remained a tentmaker,
being neither a peasant nor a noble. As identity politics underscores, nobody can
literally be all things to all people. Let’s stop tilting at windmills,
attempting the impossible, and deluding ourselves about congregational
limitations. Instead. build on your strengths.
Furthermore, with the multiplication of denominations (making lemonade
out of the lemons of schism), extremely few communities have just one church. Only
very large congregations have the people, staff, and resources to offer a truly
wide variety of first-rate programming for children of all ages, adults of all
ages and interests, professional quality music, effective social advocacy that makes
a difference locally and globally, etc. People today increasingly reject the mediocre
as unsatisfactory. Instead, people want to be associated with the truly excellent,
whether in their choice of a smart phone, health care, or a religious congregation.
Great congregations today measure success by the quality, not the quantity, of
their ministries and missions.
Dream about what your congregation might look like if it single-mindedly
focused on its few outstanding strengths. Then design and deliver ministry and
mission programs to bring that dream to fruition, boldly scrapping everything
else and realigning resources, including lay and staff time, with that dream.
The neighborhood church is dead. Long live the special interest church!
Comments