Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Mission Theologian at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Many US Christians grew up singing the Sunday School song "We Are the Church" by Richard Avery, with its lyrics asserting, "The church is not a building, the church is not a steeple." Yet despite how often these words have been intoned by US Christians, they have often acted as if the church were a building.
For a long time, constructing or buying a structure has been the sign that a congregation has arrived. This understanding was actively exported around the world, too, by Western missionaries. A real church has a building, or so the reigning assumption has been.
Much of a congregation's budget often goes towards maintaining and improving that building. The average mainline Protestant congregation in the United States is well over 100 years old. That means in many cases buildings that are similarly old and thus in need of frequent and frequently costly repairs. Yet it also means generations of emotional attachments to the building, which have driven congregations to keep investing in their buildings, despite the costs.
When the pandemic hit, most churches had to worship outside of their buildings. Many US Christians were eagerly awaiting the day that they could reconvene in their buildings and once again experience the sense of God in worshiping together in that place. The togetherness is certainly important, but the place is quite important for many too.
Yet for a small but noticeable group, the pandemic has had the opposite effect: Instead of eagerly awaiting the day when the congregation could return to its building, experiencing church apart from the building got those congregations to reflect on whether the time and money it costs to maintain a building are really worth it. Again, I'm not the first person to point this out. Mya Jaradat wrote an excellent piece for the Deseret News about this trend, focused on a profile of a recent United Methodist church start in Houston.
Congregations in older, dilapidated structures are probably more likely to entertain such questions. Smaller congregations, who have experienced greater financial impacts from the pandemic, may also be more likely to ditch their buildings, especially since it is easier to accommodate a smaller number of people in a variety of alternative settings, from living rooms to cafes to other community locations. And newer congregations, with less history and emotional attachment to their buildings, may also be more willing to ask whether a building is really worth it.
The question, then, is not just whether congregations will close and leave behind their buildings because of the effects of the pandemic, but whether congregations will decide to continue to exist but without their buildings, having been pushed in that direction by the pandemic.
This possibility that congregations might decide to continue to exist but without a building is both a revolutionary approach to being church in the United States and a missional opportunity. House churches have characterized Christianity is places from the early Mediterranean to contemporary China, but the model has not been extensively used in the United States. The pandemic may make the house church model more prominent, if congregations decide to ditch their buildings in favor of more distributed or virtual places to connect.
Another pre-pandemic model that might be useful for churches considering jettisoning their buildings is the Fresh Expressions movement. Fresh Expressions focuses on creating instances of church that are adapted to a specific local community. Quite often, these expressions of church do not meet in traditional church buildings, but rather cafes, parks, restaurants, and even tattoo parlors.
If a congregation decides to dispose of its building, that creates some different missional opportunities than if a the church closes and leaves the building to the denomination. Rick Reinhard argued in a commentary for UMNS that closing congregations could leave the denomination with a "real estate crisis." Pre-pandemic, The Atlantic called attention to this problem as well.
Yet local congregations have greater incentive to sell or repurpose their properties than annual conferences or other regional bodies who are trying to manage a portfolio of closed church properties and are less familiar with the specifics of any individual property.
This has led to some examples of churches finding creative solutions to use their buildings to forward mission instead of trying to keep a too-large physical plant going for a small number of people. Tom Sine and Dwight J. Friesen share some examples. Lovett H. Weems Jr. and Ann A. Michel share another example. Even if the result of selling a church is just freeing up more money for mission and ministry, the results can be significant, as Weems and Michel mention.
Given the investment that most US congregations have in their buildings, it will likely be only a small number who decide to go building-less as a result of the pandemic. But, as in other aspects of life, this small number pushed in that direction by the pandemic will amplify nascent trends from before the pandemic. Even if church-in-a-building remains the dominant model, as it almost certainly will, the resulting ecclesiological and missiological reflections from building-less churches are likely to be helpful to the church's self understanding.
Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church
Showing posts with label buildings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label buildings. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 18, 2021
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Convening "Creation and the City of God"
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries. The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
The last two days, Global Ministries hosted “Creation and the City of God,” a theological consultation that considered how the built environment can exemplify the flourishing of God’s creation through the ways in which development integrates with and enhances the places where it exists, ensures physical, economic and emotional safety for people in the community, and contributes to the sustainability of all of creation.
The consultation brought together a unique mix of scholars, pastors, agency executives, financial decision-makers, and creation care advocates from across The United Methodist Church and beyond. Five panels fostered interactions among those gathered around the topics of the theological significance of the built environment, how the built environment can promote inclusion and belonging, how we respond to vulnerability and living in liminal spaces, stewardship of finances and property, and creation care witness and advocacy.
I had the good fortune, along with Rev. Jenny Phillips and Rev. Dr. Jerome Sahabandhu, to be one of the people convening this event. Thus, I know as well as any why Global Ministries hosted this event. I share here a version of my remarks from Monday morning to the participants on that question.
In my role as Director of Mission Theology at Global Ministries, I see one of my main jobs as fostering conversations. In fact, I’ve argued that mission is conversation – conversation in the context of relationships across boundaries about God’s good news. That focus on conversation is spelled out in the purpose of this blog (“Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church”), and it’s present in much of the rest of the work I do as well.
Thus, when Rev. Malcolm Frazier, at the time the United States Regional Office Representative for Global Ministries, approached me and my colleague Jerome Sahabandhu about the possibility of convening a theological consultation for mission partners from around the US, I was intrigued.
When Jerome and I agreed to take Malcolm’s idea and run with it, we had to decide: On what area of missional work should we focus? What topic would be significant enough to warrant our time and attention, while not duplicating existing resources and conversations?
On the question of significance, it was clear to me that creation care is one of the most pressing political, social, cultural, and religious issues of our time. Recent scientific findings released in the past six months have only heightened that sense.
I have been deeply encouraged to see missiologists paying increasing attention to creation care as an area of mission work over the last decade or so. For instance, it is included as one of the Five Marks of Mission, J. Andrew Kirk lists it as one of four main areas of mission work in his seminal book What Is Mission?, and recent ecumenical documents on mission such as Together Towards Life have emphasized the importance of creation care as a realm of mission work.
Yet while there has been important work done in the area of creation care within The United Methodist Church by the bishops and by our sister agencies such as UMW and Church and Society, and by some of Global Ministries’ own global missionaries, it seemed like there was room to do more. Indeed, until we see dramatic changes in the ways our economy and society are structured for the sake of reducing our impact on the created world, I don’t think any amount of effort related to or attention on this issue can really be too much or unnecessarily duplicative.
At the same time, Global Ministries was deepening its creation care efforts, including naming the creation care dimension to long-standing work. In addition to a growing attention to creation care, Global Ministries has a large and diverse network and a reputation as a trusted partner to many in the denomination. Therefore, we thought that Global Ministries had the possibility of bringing together people around this issue in a way that had not been done before by including a wider array of partners in the conversation.
Thus, Jerome and I agreed to focus on creation care. Yet, although creation care is something I care very deeply about as an individual and think is quite important as a missiologist, it is not my area of primary academic expertise. Fortunately, it was at just this time that Global Ministries hired Rev. Jenny Phillips as our first-ever Creation Care Program Manager. Jenny brought a wealth of experience, knowledge, and networks that have really made this event possible.
Together, Jenny, Jerome, and I identified urban areas and the built environment as an aspect of creation care that would benefit from more attention from the church. Moreover, we felt there was often a disconnect between conversations among those involved in creation care, those involved in property stewardship, and those involved in efforts to increase inclusion. Therefore, it seemed a good topic around which to build this consultation. Jenny was much influenced here by the work of Barbara Rossing, one of our panelists this morning, on ecology and eschatology. Hence, we arrived at the theme of “Creation and the City of God.” The rest of the program flowed from there as we asked questions about what the City of God would look like, for people and the rest of God’s creation.
I expect some interesting insights to come from these two days of conversation, especially around this focus on urban and built environments. But beyond these specific insights, I pray that this event serves to encourage further conversations, conversations in which we all have a role to play, about our relationship as humans with the rest of God’s creation and our responsibility to discern together God’s good news, not just for humanity, but for all that God has made.
The last two days, Global Ministries hosted “Creation and the City of God,” a theological consultation that considered how the built environment can exemplify the flourishing of God’s creation through the ways in which development integrates with and enhances the places where it exists, ensures physical, economic and emotional safety for people in the community, and contributes to the sustainability of all of creation.
The consultation brought together a unique mix of scholars, pastors, agency executives, financial decision-makers, and creation care advocates from across The United Methodist Church and beyond. Five panels fostered interactions among those gathered around the topics of the theological significance of the built environment, how the built environment can promote inclusion and belonging, how we respond to vulnerability and living in liminal spaces, stewardship of finances and property, and creation care witness and advocacy.
I had the good fortune, along with Rev. Jenny Phillips and Rev. Dr. Jerome Sahabandhu, to be one of the people convening this event. Thus, I know as well as any why Global Ministries hosted this event. I share here a version of my remarks from Monday morning to the participants on that question.
In my role as Director of Mission Theology at Global Ministries, I see one of my main jobs as fostering conversations. In fact, I’ve argued that mission is conversation – conversation in the context of relationships across boundaries about God’s good news. That focus on conversation is spelled out in the purpose of this blog (“Dedicated to fostering conversations about the global nature of The United Methodist Church”), and it’s present in much of the rest of the work I do as well.
Thus, when Rev. Malcolm Frazier, at the time the United States Regional Office Representative for Global Ministries, approached me and my colleague Jerome Sahabandhu about the possibility of convening a theological consultation for mission partners from around the US, I was intrigued.
When Jerome and I agreed to take Malcolm’s idea and run with it, we had to decide: On what area of missional work should we focus? What topic would be significant enough to warrant our time and attention, while not duplicating existing resources and conversations?
On the question of significance, it was clear to me that creation care is one of the most pressing political, social, cultural, and religious issues of our time. Recent scientific findings released in the past six months have only heightened that sense.
I have been deeply encouraged to see missiologists paying increasing attention to creation care as an area of mission work over the last decade or so. For instance, it is included as one of the Five Marks of Mission, J. Andrew Kirk lists it as one of four main areas of mission work in his seminal book What Is Mission?, and recent ecumenical documents on mission such as Together Towards Life have emphasized the importance of creation care as a realm of mission work.
Yet while there has been important work done in the area of creation care within The United Methodist Church by the bishops and by our sister agencies such as UMW and Church and Society, and by some of Global Ministries’ own global missionaries, it seemed like there was room to do more. Indeed, until we see dramatic changes in the ways our economy and society are structured for the sake of reducing our impact on the created world, I don’t think any amount of effort related to or attention on this issue can really be too much or unnecessarily duplicative.
At the same time, Global Ministries was deepening its creation care efforts, including naming the creation care dimension to long-standing work. In addition to a growing attention to creation care, Global Ministries has a large and diverse network and a reputation as a trusted partner to many in the denomination. Therefore, we thought that Global Ministries had the possibility of bringing together people around this issue in a way that had not been done before by including a wider array of partners in the conversation.
Thus, Jerome and I agreed to focus on creation care. Yet, although creation care is something I care very deeply about as an individual and think is quite important as a missiologist, it is not my area of primary academic expertise. Fortunately, it was at just this time that Global Ministries hired Rev. Jenny Phillips as our first-ever Creation Care Program Manager. Jenny brought a wealth of experience, knowledge, and networks that have really made this event possible.
Together, Jenny, Jerome, and I identified urban areas and the built environment as an aspect of creation care that would benefit from more attention from the church. Moreover, we felt there was often a disconnect between conversations among those involved in creation care, those involved in property stewardship, and those involved in efforts to increase inclusion. Therefore, it seemed a good topic around which to build this consultation. Jenny was much influenced here by the work of Barbara Rossing, one of our panelists this morning, on ecology and eschatology. Hence, we arrived at the theme of “Creation and the City of God.” The rest of the program flowed from there as we asked questions about what the City of God would look like, for people and the rest of God’s creation.
I expect some interesting insights to come from these two days of conversation, especially around this focus on urban and built environments. But beyond these specific insights, I pray that this event serves to encourage further conversations, conversations in which we all have a role to play, about our relationship as humans with the rest of God’s creation and our responsibility to discern together God’s good news, not just for humanity, but for all that God has made.
Friday, December 14, 2018
New Mission Area: Entrepreneurial Support
Today's post is by UM & Global blogmaster Dr. David W. Scott, Director of Mission Theology at the General Board of Global Ministries.
The opinions and analysis expressed here are Dr. Scott's own and do not
reflect in any way the official position of Global Ministries.
Some weeks ago, I raised the question of what features of the world and its various contexts in the 21st century might constitute new areas of mission, in the same way that features of the world 50, 100, or 150 years ago led to areas of mission work that we now consider central: education, poverty relief, healthcare, etc.
This week, I suggest another new area of mission work: support for entrepreneurs, especially social entrepreneurs.
This new area of mission work would bring together two threads in the church: First, the church has long engaged in various forms of economic development mission, especially in developing countries and in American cities. Second, in the United States, the church is facing the question of how to deal with unused and underutilized church buildings, as Monday's Recommended Reading indicated.
One solution to the problem of empty church buildings has been to re-purpose them. The Missional Wisdom Foundation, highlighted in the recommended article, has been engaged in this sort of work with local congregations. There are a variety of ways in which empty church buildings can be repurposed, though. They can serve as community centers, homes for non-profits, converted into housing, sites for church-run businesses, even as climbing gyms.
Certainly, any time a church building is put to use for the good of the community is a missional success and should be celebrated and replicated. Yet there are reasons why churches may want to give special consideration to one possible use for their space: as free or low-cost space for start-up businesses, especially those pursuing a model of social entrepreneurship.
To the extent that churches care about the economic well-being of their neighborhoods, supporting entrepreneurs is a promising way to boost that economic well-being. Entrepreneurs and other small businesses create many of the jobs in the US, but support for entrepreneurs and the number of new entrepreneurs has been on a thirty-year decline. Space is one of the basic needs for early-stage new businesses, and churches thus could make an economic impact by offering their space to new businesses on favorable terms.
Moreover, engaging in support for new businesses also gives the church a say in what sorts of businesses get developed. This is an opportunity for the church to exercise some moral influence on the world of capitalism, influence that has been significantly curtailed in most other ways (and probably never existed to the extent popularly imagined).
That moral influence can come in not supporting businesses which the church finds morally offensive: alcohol, gambling, weapons, etc.
But it could also come in supporting businesses with a positive moral and social dimension as well. One of the hot topics in both the business and social service worlds is "social entrepreneurship" - the practice of starting businesses that both generate profit and benefit those in the communities around them in some tangible way. There's even a special type of incorporation (B Corp) that puts this goal of social benefit into the very foundational documents of a business.
So, what if the American church sought to use its space as a resource to benefit social entrepreneurs? What if it took something it had in abundance and was able to use that for the betterment of the neighborhood and the world around it? Wouldn't this be a form of joining in what God is doing?
As with pretty much all other areas of new mission work I have suggested in this series, this sort of entrepreneurial support is not something a church can likely do successfully on its own. There are, however, a host of other organizations out there with which churches can partner, from colleges and universities to economic development agencies to business associations to government entities. The availability of other partners is not the question; the question is whether the church is willing to be one of these partners.
Some weeks ago, I raised the question of what features of the world and its various contexts in the 21st century might constitute new areas of mission, in the same way that features of the world 50, 100, or 150 years ago led to areas of mission work that we now consider central: education, poverty relief, healthcare, etc.
This week, I suggest another new area of mission work: support for entrepreneurs, especially social entrepreneurs.
This new area of mission work would bring together two threads in the church: First, the church has long engaged in various forms of economic development mission, especially in developing countries and in American cities. Second, in the United States, the church is facing the question of how to deal with unused and underutilized church buildings, as Monday's Recommended Reading indicated.
One solution to the problem of empty church buildings has been to re-purpose them. The Missional Wisdom Foundation, highlighted in the recommended article, has been engaged in this sort of work with local congregations. There are a variety of ways in which empty church buildings can be repurposed, though. They can serve as community centers, homes for non-profits, converted into housing, sites for church-run businesses, even as climbing gyms.
Certainly, any time a church building is put to use for the good of the community is a missional success and should be celebrated and replicated. Yet there are reasons why churches may want to give special consideration to one possible use for their space: as free or low-cost space for start-up businesses, especially those pursuing a model of social entrepreneurship.
To the extent that churches care about the economic well-being of their neighborhoods, supporting entrepreneurs is a promising way to boost that economic well-being. Entrepreneurs and other small businesses create many of the jobs in the US, but support for entrepreneurs and the number of new entrepreneurs has been on a thirty-year decline. Space is one of the basic needs for early-stage new businesses, and churches thus could make an economic impact by offering their space to new businesses on favorable terms.
Moreover, engaging in support for new businesses also gives the church a say in what sorts of businesses get developed. This is an opportunity for the church to exercise some moral influence on the world of capitalism, influence that has been significantly curtailed in most other ways (and probably never existed to the extent popularly imagined).
That moral influence can come in not supporting businesses which the church finds morally offensive: alcohol, gambling, weapons, etc.
But it could also come in supporting businesses with a positive moral and social dimension as well. One of the hot topics in both the business and social service worlds is "social entrepreneurship" - the practice of starting businesses that both generate profit and benefit those in the communities around them in some tangible way. There's even a special type of incorporation (B Corp) that puts this goal of social benefit into the very foundational documents of a business.
So, what if the American church sought to use its space as a resource to benefit social entrepreneurs? What if it took something it had in abundance and was able to use that for the betterment of the neighborhood and the world around it? Wouldn't this be a form of joining in what God is doing?
As with pretty much all other areas of new mission work I have suggested in this series, this sort of entrepreneurial support is not something a church can likely do successfully on its own. There are, however, a host of other organizations out there with which churches can partner, from colleges and universities to economic development agencies to business associations to government entities. The availability of other partners is not the question; the question is whether the church is willing to be one of these partners.
Monday, December 10, 2018
Recommended Reading: Empty Churches in America
This blog has occasionally discussed the missional problems associated with church decline in the United States. One of those problems: What to do with church buildings that are too big for dwindling congregations or no longer used by defunct congregations? Religion journalist Jonathan Merritt has written an article for The Atlantic about just this problem, "America's Epidemic of Empty Churches." The article particularly highlights the work of United Methodist mission theologian Elaine Heath and her Missional Wisdom Foundation in helping congregations rethink the use of their buildings while still in them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)