Intentional Renewal: Focus 5

(5) Move beyond the "church building" model

Why does church have to entail a "building" for "church?"  Last week when I wrote this focus in the preview, I was asking why we couldn't be church in houses, businesses, etc. (or a church building as we have done traditionally if it fits the mission)

Then on Tuesday, I gan an email pointing me to this.  Yep, a coffee-house church started as a coffee-house not the other way around (and I would argue there is a huge difference).  Really, this sums up some of the possibilities and shows that others are thinking outside of the boxes.

It actually looks like it would fit pretty much into many of the focus I put in my strategy (although mine probably goes a bit more radical in salary of clergy, etc.).  I would actually use this as the employment hub of the clergy and others and any other events and gatherings would just be added bonus.

I am not saying we have to get rid of churches, but why do we have to move that way?  Couldn't a network of house gatherings connected be the same thing?  Would this lead to better stewardship of our offerings by the church as a system?

Intentional Renewal: Focus 4

(4) Reorganize how we provide health insurance

In the preview post last week, I explained how health insurance is a huge cost to the church.  For instance, yesterday I shared how it cost my local church, the annual conference, and myself a total of $17,940 in premiums alone (that doesn't include the cost of co-pays, medication, etc. coming out of my pocket).

Now we had a child last year and if we wouldn't have had insurance our out of pocket for medical and prescriptions would have been $10,000 less.  Now we know that insurance is there in the case of major medical procedures which can't be predicted and we know that we join insurance groups so that healthy people can cover for those who have major issues that come up.  But what would happen if looked at things differently?

This is from the FAQs section of The Simple Way (new monastic community Shane Claiborne is a part of):

What do you all do about health care?We are challenged by our vision and Gospel mandate to “love our neighbors as ourselves”, especially when millions of people in the US don’t have adequate healthcare (48 million to be exact), one of them was a five-year-old on our block that died of asthma a few years back. And while we are grateful for the tireless labor of folks working toward health care for all, we are not willing to wait for the government to do what the Church is meant to BE. We are excited by the creative initiatives to create structures of mutual care, ways of bearing each others burdens like the early Church…. One of those is called Christian Healthcare Ministries. Each month folks contribute money to a common fund of which over 90% goes directly to meet needs. Members receive newsletters that tell who is in the hospital and how to be praying for one another. CHM now has over 20,000 members who have collectively paid over 400 million dollars in medical bills over the past 20 years. Check them out: www.chministries.org. And this is not an ad for CHM, but more for the idea of CHM and so many others… see it as an invitation to join a Christian medical collective that is already out there, or to start one… 48 million folks are waiting.

What they use is just one example, but what if we as United Methodists created a collective that extended not just to "clergy" but to laity also?  Part of the "benefits" of our clergy could be reduced monthly cost compared to the larger collective participant.

For instance in Christian Healthcare Ministries the Gold package is $150 per participant (family would only have to pay for 3 participants max), Silver package is $85 per, and Bronze is $45 per.  So say clergy get 50% off the level they would select.  That's it.

I know this would be very complicated to set up (more complicated then I want to delve into), but doesn't this seem like something that could be extremely valuable for a focus of one of our General Boards as a possibility?

Agree? Disagree? Other ideas on health insurance?

Intentional Renewal: Focus 3

(3) Rethink how clergy are supported and support themselves

I wrote in the preview post posing the situation where our clergy would graduate from seminary debt free and then would be placed in communities with only certain things paid for by the conference.

So before we begin lets take a look at my pastoral compensation here in Minnesota (we have a step-program where there is the entrance minimum and the salary increases $450 for each year of service...I am on step 3):

Salary = $34,321
Housing Allowance/Utilities = $13,200 (Rent, Phone, Utilities)
Pension = $7794
Health Insurance = $17940 (80% church, 10% AC, 10% pastor)
Mileage = $2000
Professional Expenses = $1000
Continuing Ed = $1392

Total Cost to Local Church = $74,059 (not including the $3588 the AC and Pastor pay for insurance)

The first church I was placed at had a parsonage so the housing/utilities section was about $7,200 less, and the overall budget was $142,000 (usually ended up spending $126,000) with 90% designated to operating expenses, building, and pastor........leaving 10% for educational material, programming, and mission.  Seems excessive to me and personally (note that this is a personal opinion) it doesn't seem to bring about a good stewardship of the gifts God has given us (yes, I struggle daily with the cost of my servanthood to the church....).

So what if we placed pastors in communities and provided just housing, utilities, continuing ed, and put money in their pension (health insurance will be covered tomorrow).  For example we will just use my package as an example (this will obviously vary slightly based on geographical location) to see how much the yearly cost would be:

$13,200 (Housing and Utilities- Includes everything including cell phone & internet) *Assumes no parsonage--parsonage would allow savings of roughly $8200*
$7794 (pension)
$1392 (continuing ed--unused continuing ed would be banked for future use)

Currently = $74,059
New Proposal = $22,386 *or $14,186 (if parsonage owned and paid off)

Now, of course some might be asking how people are going to pay for food, gas, clothes, car, etc.  My proposal was lets place clergy in a community and have them get a job (part-time should do).  Here are my estimates (dont' have the exact on me right now) of our costs per month

Food = $600
Transportation = $650 (300=gas; 171=car payment; 90 = insurance; 89 = maintenance and repairs budget)

That would be $1250 plus say another $150 (to cover clothes, diapers, other expenses) making that $1400 per month.  Now there are all kinds of factors that could play into things like spouse, etc.  My wife makes about $1000-$1400 a month in a job that allows us to not pay daycare, but then we pay for Micah to go to pre-school (a choice not a necessity) at $450/month (all day every day).  So most months what Stacy makes would cover our expenses and whatever I would work under the system would be above and beyond this (which could account for those unpredictable things, offering, saving for kids education, house purchase in retirement, helping others, toys for kids, etc, Stacy's student loans) ***all of this would be assuming being debt-free***

Assuming I made minimum wage (either $6.15/hr or $7.25/hr depending on company and requirement by state of MN *this will vary depending on state) and worked 20 hrs/week:

$6.15 (or $7.25) X 20 hours X 52 weeks = $6396-$7540/yr = $533-$628/mo

Obviously, hard choices would have to be made about preschool, etc. (and this is assuming that there is a spouse who is working....my emphasis would be on contextual understanding of family dynamics that determine some of the compensation...for instance if Stacy worked full time as a teacher she would bring home about $2000 net per month but then we would have daycare costs making it about even with what is listed as our current situation)

But in our current situation we could totally do it, and if I had known this was what it was going to be like in going into the ministry then that obviously also would effect how I prepared for the life, etc.

Would it be hard?  Yes, but I really think it would align us with some of that whole John Wesley crazy (I don't think he was crazy but I am pretty sure most people would think he was crazy if he were living today with his beliefs on living, poverty, etc.)

What are the benefits?

-Money given within network could be used for mission and spiritual growth (along with supporting conference structure that would supply clergy...some networks would supply more than others, just like churches do now)

-Pastors would be out in community working and making connections

***Important that I think this model follows the tent-making example of Paul***

Obviously it is going to be a little more complicated, but this is just the beginning of my thoughts.  Anyone disagree? Agree, but?  Fine tune?

Intentional Renewal: Focus 1

I have to start this off by saying that Craig Groeschel of lifechurch.tv (He is formally of the UMC) wrote some very interesting stuff that pushes the UMC to think about what we are doing and I have enjoyed reading his posts (thanks to fellow clergy Melissa Meyer) and you can read Shane Raynor's thoughts and get links to Groeschel's six posts here.

This week I will be writing expanded posts on the 5 areas of focus I listed last week in my envisioned intentional renewal strategy. Up today is:

(1) Place theologically trained clergy in communities not churches

Okay, last week in my mini-description of this focus I ended up talking about desiring to see clergy placed in communities (intentionally) and not in "churches." In Minnesota, our placements are to the church and community, but in reality is 90-95% (if not more) of the clergy's time and energy is going towards the "church" where they are placed (and most of that energy is spent maintaining the system already in place or helping the church survive).

What if we started to place new clergy in communities rather than in churches (funding for this will be addressed in a later focus on Wednesday)?

(1) Theologically trained clergy would have the most important foundation: understanding who God is and who God has called us to be within a larger orthodox Christian understanding. Instead of just being equipped via a practical ministry model that may or may not go out-of-style. The leaders who were being sent out would be trained in the core matters of faith which should be the foundation of all of our lives as leaders of God's people. We want people who know the Scriptures (the story, history, etc.), Tradition (what have others within the history of Christianity thought and taught about God), and who are able then to take those things and respond to their context. This means that "practical" training does not disappear but rather it is in response to the exact context where the person finds themselves. (It wouldn't do me very good to learn all the new ways that ministry is moving within technology if I were placed in some of the areas of rural Minnesota where maybe 20-60% of the population has internet and uses it regularly...there it would be better if I learned practical ministry skills like rural dynamics, relationships, etc.)

(2) Without having to worry about maintaining buildings (people could meet wherever: homes, businesses, fields, mountains, wherever) the money given to God in the offering could be used to help transform the community that the people are living in. When roughly 1/3 of many budgets for churches is used to "maintain" the building via utilities, insurance, mortgage, maintenance, then we have to start asking ourselves if we are being good stewards. (Think about this: what was the maintenance cost to churches when they first came into being? I am guessing about what it cost to build them since there wasn't electricity (or insurance), etc.) Why aren't we using the things we already have (like homes or local businesses) for gathering places?

(3) Because clergy would be placed in communities, the focus would 100% be on the people and the community. As much as we like to say we place clergy in communities that the churches are a part of, we truly know that the church gets all the attention (and often that is a certain few people....the gatekeepers) With no office the clergy would have to go out and build relationships and be out in the community. (this would have a two-fold benefit with #2....if someone asked who they were they would say their name and that they were a united methodist clergy. Instead of having to be able to invite them to a church they would have to connect them with a person within the network or invite them to his or her home....I know scandalous responsibility)

(4) It wouldn't matter if the communities were urban, suburban, or rural. (This will make more sense when we get to #3) I think this might benefit rural situations the best because of the lack of having to maintain buildings on a fixed amount of people/growth possible. Urban or Suburban settings find it difficult as the lifestyles of those settings can make having a "common and easily recognizable" gathering place an advantage.


I will admit this is a work in progress, but I am hoping that those of you who read this might give me feedback and thoughts. I am only able to better define my position when being challenged or refined through the thoughts of others.

UMC: A Vision of Intentional Renewal Strategy

Okay, so if we build off the assumption of yesterday's post and say that renewal is going to come from going outside the church and bringing about renewal from the outside-to-inside rather than focusing on the inside in the hopes of pushing it outside then what could be an intentional strategy for doing this?


(1) Place theologically trained clergy in communities not churches (Expanded Detail coming March 1)

Now, I know when we are placed at churches we are placed to serve the communities also. However, what if we just intentionally placed clergy in communities as missionaries to create networks of Christians. (Note: Not to build a church, but to build a community of disciples networked together) They could be named UMC Network: Winona; UMC Network: Nashville; UMC Network: New York, etc. (I am somewhat imagining as a possibility some type of adaptive morphing of the class system set up by John Wesley....maybe house fellowships)

Of course, the question should be raised: How are we going to fund the clergy position if there is no church?

(2) Redefine the responsibilities of clergy (Expanded Detail coming March 2)

Let's be honest: In the current system the primary time consumer for clergy is: administration (under the umbrella of "Order"...specifically referring to elder orders now). What if we thought of clergy more as missionaries whose primary task is to help make disciples and to connect them, enabling them to take over (administration of sacraments would follow an adaptation of circuit rider method just in local network....)

(3) Rethink how clergy are supported and support themselves (Expanded Detail March 3)

What if we had our clergy graduating debt free (student loans, etc.) and sent them into communities and only provided the following: housing, utilities (cell phone, internet, and water, heat, garbage, etc.---not tv or landlines---), and pension......health insurance will be dealt with in another topic. Clergy would be responsible for finding work to pay for necessities outside this and any luxuries. (yes that means finding jobs and might I suggest possibly choosing jobs that mean interaction with people)

(4) Reorganize how provide health insurance (Expanded Detail coming March 4)

Health insurance is a huge cost to churches/conferences/pastors and is only continuing to rise and will continue on that pattern as long as we continue on in classic models. Shane Claiborne inspired me to rethink how we do health insurance through his book Irresistible Revolution and how he participates in a health insurance co-op. There is some promise, I believe in the model and their intentional network that involves prayer and support is an inspiring model.

(5) Move beyond the "church building" model (Expanded Detail coming March 5)

This is connected to the item #1. The fact is buildings cost money to build and maintain, so what if we used buildings already constructed. The possibilities are endless: homes, stores, etc. (we could even look at recycling buildings that are abandoned and reconstruct and meet there and maybe incorporate housing, etc.) Church buildings could still exist, but I think we are going to have to move past the mentality which says to be a church means to have a building (or be moving towards having a building).

I am still thinking of more and would be interested in others reactions to the above or any suggestions they may have.

My plan is to expand each point in detail next week in daily posts.

Shane Raynor, The Gospel of Luke, and Me: What is really inside those doors?

This morning I was catching up on my twitter feed after walking Micah to school and happened upon a link to this article by Shane Raynor on his blog "The Wesley Report." (Side Note about "The Wesley Report." While I miss the daily links to Methodist blogs around the web that Shane used to do, I really like him sharing his voice on subjects--plus I know the work of doing all those links had to be consuming) To sum it up, Shane writes briefly about why he is supportive of new church starts.

One particular paragraph Shane wrote stuck out:

Established churches are often full of history, entrenched families, power struggles and politics, especially smaller churches. Even congregations that express a desire to grow sometimes aren't willing to make the sacrifices to do it, especially when those sacrifices involve giving up personal sacred cows. Pastors who try to grow churches that have "old-school" mindsets will usually spend most of their energy trying to convince the congregation to grow rather than actually making it grow. That's why more than a few of our "churches" are really chapels, and the sad reality is, many of these churches will never be more than what they are now.

I think Raynor is right in his assessment and it is a subject I have been struggling with internally since I entered appointed ministry in the summer of 2007.

Of course, God works in mysterious ways, and this morning I happened to be reading Luke 4-6 for a bible study I am doing with a pastor friend of mine from here in Winona. I had The Message translation on hand and started to read and came to Luke 5:36-39:

"No one cuts up a fine silk scarf to patch old work clothes; you want fabrics that match. And you don't put wine in old, cracked bottles; you get strong, clean bottles for your fresh vintage wine. And no one who has ever tasted fine aged wine prefers unaged wine."

I have heard this passage hundreds of times and read it hundreds of time, but this morning it took on new meaning for me. The quotes from Jesus come in response to those at Simon's house who are asking why he is always spending his time at "parties" (Peterson's translation) instead of being like John's disciples and the Pharisees who were known for "keeping fasts and saying prayers." Contextually, I think we could easily translate this into those at Simon's house asking, "Jesus, why are you always hanging out at bars, restaurants, and coffee shops? Why aren't you in the church like all those other pastors?"

That brings me to the way God spoke to my heart in terms of this subject. What if a big issue facing the church is that we are trying to renew from the inside instead of renew from the outside? Let me explain. God, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, brought about renewal by looking outside the normal paradigm of the Judaism system. God didn't do it through the Pharisees or Sadducees, he did it through fisherman, tax collectors, etc. The lives of these ordinary individuals outside the religious system brought about a movement that changed the landscape eventually. I couldn't help but be struck by the fact that what Jesus is saying about the fabrics and wine containers points to this reality. (Does this mean that to push the analogy if God had used the system we would have ended up with a blown up system and the movement dead like standing around with some broken wine skin and our wine absorbed into the dirt below never to be enjoyed?)

This brings about a string of questions that are running through my head...

Are we trying to patch up our old work clothes (churches in the current system) with fine silk (clergy being trained in the missional renewal mindset)? How is it working? Are churches being renewed (is the fabric holding) or is the patch being ripped off the old clothes (either the clergy adapting to the systems desires or leaving the system)?

Does the narrative within the Gospel of Luke challenge us to think about how we are spending our resources? Seriously, think about this: How much money of ours is used to "maintain" and how much is used to "advance the Gospel" in tangible ways that show fruit?

Are the new church starts and our growing faith communities in places outside the United States within Methodism the hope for renewal as they draw new people into transformed lives that witness to those within the current system?

Could renewal come from within churches by using a "church within a church" model that allowed missional renewal to occur? Is this possible since it still seems one has to overcome the "chapel" mentality of the current church it would be within?

Just thoughts and questions running through my head on this day....

Coming Tomorrow: A Vision of Intentional Renewal Strategy