DOING CHURCH DIFFERENTLY 2: CLUSTERING

Nobody needs to be convinced that the world has changed. Or that the church of our childhood no longer exists. Every congregation has been profoundly affected by the deep changes in our society over the last fifty years.

But what to do?

In a series of blog posts, I am exploring some different models of church that I believe are absolutely workable in a United Church context -- if there is a commitment to change for the sake of church's mission.

Last week, I looked a Missional Communities. This week I’ll look at Clusters.

What is a Cluster?

Part of the problem is with the terminology itself. The same word can mean different things to different people. For example, some people call the Missional Communities I described in my last post Clusters.

And Waterloo Presbytery has had experience with geographical groupings of congregations that were called Clusters.

I am using the word Cluster to mean “a network of congregations sharing a team of ministry leaders.”

This is nothing new. It’s the main organizational model of the Methodist Church in many places even today, such as Great Britain, where it’s called a “Circuit.”

Basically, a Cluster, or a Circuit is a grouping of congregations, usually between three and twelve in number, that are served by a team of ministry leaders who provide worship, pastoral care and programming.

Let’s imagine a hypothetical example. Six congregations decide to form a Cluster or Circuit. Most of them are served by part time ministers. All of them are struggling to maintain their buildings and pay their bills.

A ministry staff team is assembled that could include two full time Order of Ministry persons, two Licensed Lay Worship Leaders, two Congregational Designated Ministers specializing in Pastoral Care and Children and Youth, and a couple of retired ministers who are available for occasional preaching and visiting.

Between the Ordered Ministers and the LLWLs, each church would have someone to lead their worship service each week, although not the same person every week. All of the other aspects of ministry would be divided up among the team. Coverage for holidays and sabbaticals would be arranged from within the team.

Initially, the congregations might feel that they had lost something by not having their “own minister.” In order to accommodate the preaching schedule, some might need to change the time of their worship service.

But all of the churches would have the benefits of a full-time, called minister, each of whom would be able to concentrate on their own particular areas of strength, plus the services of the other members of the team. The entire circuit of 6 churches would be served by the equivalent of 4 or 4 1/2  full time staff, which would reduce the cost to each individual congregation.  They would also have access to the gifts and expertise of the several leaders with different training and gifts, not just one part-time minister.

This model would also lend itself to sharing of administrative and custodial services, office equipment and purchasing.
There are several possible variations to this model.

Variation #1:  Hub and Satellite
In this model, one larger church joins with one or more smaller churches. Staffing and administration are done through the large church, which agrees to provide worship leadership, pastoral care and support to the satellite congregations in return for paying a share of the total budget to the central treasury. The smaller churches would be guaranteed stable ministry without having to operate their own offices or do their own administration.

A further variation of this model would be live streamed worship from the hub congregation at one or more of the satellites.

While this sounds like an organizational change, it really depends on a change of attitude. People in all of the churches would need to move from thinking only about their own needs to the welfare and mission of the whole cluster. The smaller churches would have to get over their fears of being dominated or swallowed up by the larger church, while the larger church would have to agree not to regard the smaller churches as a burden. Everyone would need to be motivated by a commitment to the wellbeing of all, and the mission of the whole church.

Variation 2:  Congregational Specialization.

Think of how many of our towns and cities have two or more United Churches that all offer basically the same thing at the same hour every week. Four, five, six churches more or less the same worship service at 10:30 on Sunday morning.

Supposing a community with that number of United Churches agreed that they would each offer something different based on their particular character, strengths and resources.

Church A would offer high quality traditional worship led by the organ and chancel choir and outstanding biblical preaching at 10 a.m.

Church B would offer high energy contemporary worship led by a praise band, together with programming for children and youth at 11 a.m.

Church C has a long history of contemplative prayer and spiritual practices. They decide to forego Sunday morning altogether and offer meditative, experiential worship on Wednesday evening, plus weekday morning prayer.

Church D offers family inclusive worship on the Messy Church model at 4 p.m. on Saturday.

Church E attracts a community from a specific population and ministers to their particular needs – persons with disabilities, for example, or persons in recovery.

Together, these five churches support and encourage each other’s unique ministry in the name of the mission of the United Church of Canada. Only two or perhaps three of them occupy the traditional Sunday morning time slot, but together they offer multiple points of connection to the community.

Get Over Yourself

Significant changes are not just organizational, they are cultural. They depend on an attitude adjustment, from thinking that the church’s job is to cater to the needs, wants, desires and tastes of its membership, to thinking in terms of the church’s mission. Which is really Jesus’ mission to the world through gathered communities called churches.

Congregations need to be prepared to set aside what is most convenient and satisfying for their current members for the sake of a larger vision.

Because, ironically, the more churches focus only on their inward needs, the less likely they are to survive in a rapidly changing society. The shift from the inward needs of church members to mission and discipleship for the sake of God’s reign is the key to any renewal of the church.