Skip to main content

Church Planting and Church Renewal: The Way Forward

So, I'm going to shift from talking about politics back to church planting now.

The Executive Committee have committed to grow the Unitarian community by 20% in five years. How do you achieve that? Do you expect every congregation to grow at 20%? Well if you did then every congregation would have to grow as laid out here by Scott Wells.

But the fact is not every congregation well grow at 20%. Obviously some will decline, some will grow, will stay the same. Some will change at a different rate than others. The least we can do is monitor this, to get a sense of what is growing and why.

But eventually the Executive Committee are going to have to make an uncomfortable decision. That decision is based on the fact that they cannot give the same support to all congregations and so will have to prioritise those congregations that can benefit most from their support.

For my congregation, for example, I wouldn't expect to get a any particular support from the national body. We can (just about) afford a full-time minister, we are in an area densely populated with Unitarian churches. We're doing OK.

But there are other places that would most benefit from support. We need to identify which those ones are. Here's a modest proposal: In every one of the ten biggest British cities there should be at least one healthy Unitarian congregation with a full time Minister. This would prioritise Glasgow, Bradford, Liverpool and Bristol. Liverpool and Bristol have some, part-time, ministry, Glasgow and Bradford have none.

I would pick one of these cities as a growth project. This would involve largely providing money towards the stipend of a Minister. But it could also involve something like a local publicity project. It would, of course, depend on the local congregation committing to the process, and wanting to be part of it.

In addition to this I would look into planting a new church somewhere in London and the southeast. In fact I would aim to plant a new church in London and the southeast every five years. I would fund a Minister for this new start.

Where does the money come from?

Of course this is the key question. The answer is obvious. The money comes from the funds of closed down churches. These will either tend to go to districts or to the national General Assembly. What we need to do is make sure these funds go to some kind of pot that can be used for missions.

This is potentially a lot of money. A closed down church could easily have assets that could pay for a full time Minister for five years. We would have to understand that the money would be for spending, not for living off interest and investments.

And what you cannot plan for

The kind of thing I'm talking about is a national plan. But there's plenty that would fall outside it. It would never have occured to me to plant a new church in Bangor, but there were a handful of Unitarians there, and they did, and so there it is.

None of this national planning should discourage any pioneering folk from planting new churches wherever the hell they like. And if such congregations start they should be supported (including financial support) by the national or district body. There's the stuff that a national committee would plan for and then there's the local project inspired by the vision of a few in a local context. Great, fantastic, let a thousand flowers bloom.

The priority

The point where the rubber meets the road is money. We've been talking about growth for ages. Now's the time to commit it. We need to set up a fund for church planting and church renewal. This fund needs to be where funds from closed churches go, and can also be supported by other fund-raising. That's the next step.


Or, is it better instead to put money into successful churches?

It would be a very unfair way of doing things, but perhaps churches that have begun growing are more likely to continue to do so. Perhaps the model that Kingswood have taken - appointing a lay assistant - or some other form of programme support might be useful.

The other thing is that I don't think that in congregations we make enough use of our lay activists. I find it hard to help my congregation benefit from the things I have learned at GA / Buyan / Summer School / UCCN because we haven't yet learnt how to work collaboratively.

I think the last paragraph is a bit vague. But essentially we are small, congregations need to work on using all the resources they have effectively.
Anonymous said…
Sounds well thought out, Stephen.

I think, basically, in each major English city the Unitarians should look to have a central church with their own (modernised) building and minister - then from there, establish a network of 'house churches' in the suburbs / outer areas.

You should perhaps go for Moderator / Chief Exec / Whatever-it-is-now...

Popular posts from this blog

From liberalism to radicalism

I've been reflecting recently on the journey I've been making from liberalism to radicalism, and how I'm beginning to see it as a necessary evolution if you're not going to get stuck in a kind of immature liberalism that fails to serve both you and the world. By liberalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise personal freedom and not being restricted by the patterns of the past. By radicalism I mean ideas and movements that emphasise justice, solidarity, and liberation from oppression. Yes, I'm using broad categories here. Let me give an example. Let's talk about sexual liberation in a Western context for example. We can talk about women getting more agency over their bodies; gay and bi people being able to have sex with one another and marry one another; we can talk about the work of overcoming shame around sexuality. All of that is liberalism. It's good stuff. It's still ongoing. So we might ask the question "where next for sexu

Am I an activist?

  I remember being at some protest outside the Senedd once, and someone introduced me to someone else, and said, "Stephen is an activist." I remember thinking - am I? I don't know. What does it mean to be an activist? Who gets to use that title? Am I an activist because I turn up at a few protests? Or do I have to be one them organising the protest to be an activist? Do I have to lead? Do I have to do the organisational work to be an activist? Because the truth is that since I moved to Cardiff I have kept myself at the periphery of a lot of activist groups. I go to meetings, I hear about things, I turn up at protests, but I have rarely got really fully involved. Why is that? It's not for the reason that I don't have time. I do, in fact. But often I sit in these meetings and protests and think "Is this effective? Is it worthwhile? Is it going to produce something at the end of it all that is worth the effort?" I suppose, coming from the world of church I

LOST and theology: who are the good guys?

***Spoiler alert*** I'm continuing some theological/philosophical reflections while re-watching the series LOST. One of the recurring themes in LOST is the idea of the "good guys" and the "bad guys." We start the series assuming the survivors (who are the main characters) are the "good guys" and the mysterious "Others" are definitely bad guys. But at the end of series 2 one of the main characters asks the Others, "Who are  you people?" and they answer, in an extremely disturbing way, "We're the good guys." The series develops with a number of different factions appearing, "the people from the freighter" "the DHARMA initiative" as well as divisions among the original survivors. The question remains among all these complicated happenings "who really are the good guys?" I think one of the most significant lines in the series is an episode when Hurley is having a conversation with