The Church in 2092

As promised yesterday, I want to share some of my thoughts about the church in 2092. (If you didn't watch the GBOD video I posted yesterday, it may be helpful to do that before reading further, since I think my thoughts today are still quite affected by it.)

Leaner and Meaner

Ok, I don't mean "mean-er." God knows the church could use a lot less mean-ness. But leaner and more effective, or more bang for the...buck...time...commitment--that just doesn't have the same ring to it. I agree with the video that in 2092, there will be fewer, but larger and stronger congregations. Now, let me say that this is really a regional issue--to say this as an East Coast-er is to speak to a different reality than, say, my husband's home state of Minnesota. There are fewer, but generally larger churches there. Calvary is, one of the largest churches in our conference (which covers DC, lots of MD, and parts of WV). In Minnesota, we'd be perhaps the high side of average.

We cannot sustain the network we currently have. The system worked really well in the early days of the denomination and country--the wide network of small meeting houses--but we are still reeling from the invention that has most challenged churches: the internal combustion engine. Yep, that's right, the car. It allows people to CHOOSE what church they attend, especially if they want to stick with one denomination (otherwise, you have the three churches in your town to choose from).

I believe the United Methodist Church has a powerful witness, and our theology, I believe, speaks to where people are and where God seeks to take them. That witness can remain strong even if there are fewer formal congregations. In fact, I think the only way to make sure that is so is to strategically evaluate where formal congregations need to exist and be very clear on their functions. These fewer, larger congregations need top-notch staff, communication and networking systems. they need to be nimble, not overly addicted to themselves (a healthy dose of self-awareness and a sinful focus on self are very different). These congregations should focus on empowering and equipping people (not pastors, but laity) to do ministry, and should provide the framework and guidance for them to be successful.

Fewer, more effective congregations will entail a shift in how we evaluate and assign pastors. These fewer, larger congregations will likely require more pastors to oversee specific areas (it actually takes great skill and time to empower people--it's easier to do it yourself, though obviously more limiting).

Small Groups as Key System Components

It ain't new, folks. Wesley's Methodists grew because they were nimble and able to expand (and contract) as population shifted and the culture of a place did. With fewer, larger congregations, people will be at a great distance from the main campus of those congregations. Those congregations should be actively connecting with, planting and growing gatherings of people throughout their regions. As these large congregations get clear about their unique identities, the small gatherings will be able to serve as outgrowths and new manifestations of those congregations. They will be lay-led, but well-resourced and supported by the congregation's pastors and staff.

Attention will need to be given to training and supervision of these small gatherings. We will need to balance the need for cohesiveness and unity with the flexibility for these groups to have their own place and identity. As a systems person, it kind of freaks me out to think of the chaos possible, but I believe there is a way to balance both the need for unity and independence.

These small groups must necessarily not become attached to one location or leader, though one suspects they will have great stability in each. There will need to be "new" (think back to Wesley's day) expectations fro lay leadership as well as a revised idea of the role of clergy. These small gatherings will have a clear connection with the larger congregation, but not merely as a satellite group. In fact, I would anticipate that many in that group may worship Sunday mornings with the congregation (which likely has a couple sites) but during the week meets for support with this group. The group may have ancillary activitiies, but specialized programming will primarily flow from the congregation, though may be implemented in different ways in different communities covered.

Clergy Leaders & Order

There are a lot of things people currently expect of their pastors. And lots of things pastors expect of themselves. In 80 years, pastors CANNOT be the ones DOING the ministry of the congregation. In fact, I would suggest (as the Call to Action findings do) that the more vibrant congregations today are ones where lay people, not pastors are DOING the vast majority of the ministry.

Pastors will need to be trainers, coaches, managers (yes, managers--this isn't a dirty word) and visionaries. Pastors will need to have top-notch people skills, and the ability to appropriately explain theology will not matter if that pastor cannot see how that matters for and should be applied to the work of the church.

Senior pastors of these fewer, larger congregations will need to be people who could function well as CEOs of major businesses, and they must also possess preaching and teaching skills. These skills are certainly those sought even today, but in 80 years, there will need to be clarity about what pastors are on that track and which are called to be associates, or specialized pastors. Indeed, just as in business, we will need specialists--HR, finance, operations, etc. I believe in 80 years, we will need to value all pastors by recognizing that most people are not called to be generalists.

In 80 years, I would see there being, perhaps in a town like Frederick, one to three churches that cover the Frederick area, which each congregation having at least 3-4 pastors. Other than the senior pastor, the others would be specialists. That congregation would also have a staff, averaging 2-3 staff multiplied by the number of pastors.


Not all pastors will need to be high-quality preachers, but only (or at least primarly) those who are should be preachers. I think some pastors are called to specialize in a ministry area but perhaps without much preaching responsibility. Though, really, we'll need to decide if these folks should be ordained or serve as staff. We would need to really celebrate the ministry of the lay people and have structured paths for lay leadership, and probably ordain fewer people, but on average very high quality leaders.

Lay Leaders as Primary Ministry Coordinators

Lay leaders will necessarily be vital in this new system. High-quality training will be necessary, and people who now serve as lay speakers, and even local pastors, will need to be in these roles, some with oversight of other lay leaders. Most of these people will be volunteers, and will have the full support and guidance of the clergy and staff--the congregation staff will necessarily include talented administrative support who will work with these lay leaders so that the lay leaders can spend their time doing ministry not paperwork.


Lay leaders will need to be empowered and have a voice, and not merely be actors in a dram directed by clergy. Clergy, then, will need to be able to play well with others and not be prone to power trips. People who do not delegate, work well with others, or just generally try to get along with others should not be pastors, because we will expect our lay leaders to take leading roles. Lay leaders need to be well-trained and committed to the congregation's vision while also helping their people and the pastors stay nimble and effective. In fact, while I would anticipate longer tenures for pastors (which is already the case at larger churches) lay leaders would provide the greatest continuity for these congregations and small gatherings. Lay leaders would need to be caregivers, teachers, managers (also) and scholars.

Message and Relevance

For the United Methodist Church to remain and thrive in 80 years, we will need to recapture our leading role on social issues and assert the value of our unique theological emphases. Trite celebrations of Methodist history or teachings are insignificant in a world where people have access to vast amounts of information. We will need to be clear ourselves and help others understand the powerful beliefs and focuses that characterize us as followers of Wesley, Otterbein and Albright.

All we do will need to be soundly rooted in our theology, and careless forays into the latest fads cannot characterize us. When the UMC speaks, it must be noteworthy, not just more chatter. There will need to be great room for dialogue and disagreement, but it would be hard to imagine that this dialogue would not be more open and accepting than it now is. In 80 years, I hope the UMC is characterized by a serious attention to scripture and theology that underlies our movements to open our doors. In 80 years, I hope that when the UMC takes a stand, it is clear to others that we really know what we're talking about, and that our leaders do as well.

It Ain't That Far Off

These are just a few of the things I think will mark the church in 2092. They are not new. If anything, they are largely a return to what made Methodists so effective at the beginning. We have become, though, the people Wesley feared we would. We've become settled, affluent and stuck. It will be painful to get unstuck. There will have to be difficult choices made about what form the UMC need to take in a neighborhood or community, and the transition that many small churches will need to make from stand alone congregation to gathering of part of a larger congregation will meet with entrenched resistance. Larger churches will struggle to meaningfully open their programs and leadership roles to people from other communities, and we'll need to have some very practical discussions about finances, church property and roles & expectations. These conversations and discussion will, however, be more difficult for smaller churches who will indeed become assumed by larger congregations.

BUT--there are people and churches who are doing this. And they are thriving. Many churches are beginning to do at least some of these. And bishops and cabinets are finally really starting to have conversations with local churches about what their future looks like. We'll need to make sure that those congregations who will be those churches standing in 80 years, those fewer and larger congregations, are not drained of their vitality by assuming dying structures. There will need to be very clear endings and transitions so that we  do not simply end up with a few pastors doing more work at more churches. The entire structure of clergy and lay leadership must change for these transitions to bring vitality.

I believe that in 80 years, the UMC can be the healthiest it's been in a long, long time--maybe even the healthiest it's ever been. Not by doing something new, but by learning from the successes (and failures) of our shared past, and being willing to move on to new things. All of our leaders will need to be held accountable for their leadership skills and fruits (laity, clergy and bishops) and NO ONE should be invested with power that cannot be lost if mishandled. It should not take gargantuan efforts to remove a bishop, pastor or lay leader if they are not effective.

So, I'm excited about what the coming century will bring. I think it will be difficult--for everyone. I think some of the latest fads that church leaders follow will need to be laid aside--so too the obstinate hold on traditions will need to be replaced by an earnest attention to reclaiming the marks of the movement that got us here. We can do it, though. together, we can, and we will.