Mountainside United Church in Westmount (Montreal) is moving
or amalgamating. As the article below suggests (to me at least) this raises all
sorts of interesting questions for all of us, regardless of our denomination. Montreal’s situation is unique, of course, given the role
language (to some degree) has played in the equation. But the underlying
dynamics, where only a fraction of the people who used to go to church still
do, is relevant to all church members, especially those of us who worship in
large urban/suburban centres.
One of my parishioners who grew up at Mountainside noted
that Montreal churches seemed more adept at amalgamating than Toronto churches.
The subtext of her comment was something like this: “Why are there so many
churches that insist on struggling on to the bitter end in Toronto? Why don’t
we talk about amalgamation earlier, before the death throes set in, when there
is still opportunity to do something new and exciting together?"
I think that when churches are forced to amalgamate because
the alternative is death there will be little energy left over to do a new
thing. Staving off death is the overriding goal, after all. I also believe that
earlier, strategic amalgamation might allow the pursuit of other goals before energy
and resources have evaporated. Such churches could consider multiple types of
worship throughout the week and on Sundays, targeting services to different
demographics. Resources for appropriate staffing, marketing, and outreach would
not yet be used up. Congregations would arrive at the amalgamation service less
anxious about survival and more willing to work on new ventures.
Lyle Schaller, the (mostly) mainline church admin expert,
told me once that when two churches amalgamate, the final attendance numbers
would finally level off at the level of the best attendance of the largest of
the two churches amalgamating. He also suggested that the only way around this
trend, which he had long observed, would be to amalgamate before the death
watch set in. Death-watch amalgamations are so tempered by sadness, regret, emotional
loss, and often, conflict, that they rarely succeed. What is needed to make
amalgamation work, in other words, is vision and resources, not the last best
hope for survival.
I think that those of us who have thought of amalgamation
know this in our guts. But we have little stomach for change and its risks—including for ministers, potential job losses, and for members a
whole new Sunday routine in a strange place. We’d rather soldier on till retirement,
or till a better opportunity comes along, and we’d all love to avoid conflict
and the pain that goes with hard (even if strategically smart) decisions. But
maybe it is time for many more local churches to sit down together and talk this through, and maybe even dream a bit. It seems a small thing given that much of what we’ve
tried in the past hasn’t worked at all.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment
What do you think?