Why Discontinue Congregations?

May 18, 2011

Each year the annual conference acts to discontinue congregations upon the recommendation of the bishop and the cabinet. 

Discontinuances are never routine because they mark the end of the lives of congregations which had been means of grace for people over a long period of time.  Because of  the existence of these congregations, the Gospel of Jesus Christ was proclaimed, people received the gift of faith, and lives and communities were affected.  Often remarkable events have happened in the lives of the congregations.  Moreover, there is usually still an active group of people who love one another and who love worshipping together who have to give up their customs and become attached to other United Methodist congregations.  There is always sadness at the discontinuance of a congregation.

The main reason today to discontinue a congregation is that it can no longer fulfill the mission of the United Methodist Church.  This is a different time than a generation ago.  In the past, as long as a congregation could pay its bills, including its connectional giving, it was allowed to continue.  Today, the Church expects every congregation to possess missional vitality.  If the congregation is no longer able or willing to accomplish the mission of the United Methodist Church to make disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world, then the Church has a responsibility to discontinue that congregation and seek new ways to fulfill its mission in that location.

In our polity, the decision to discontinue a congregation is made by the annual conference.  The authority for making this decision does not reside in the Charge Conference of the congregation.  It is true that District Superintendents call a Charge Conference to permit the members to vote to discontinue voluntarily.  However, this is done for pastoral reasons because it is better for the members to acknowledge and to accept the necessity and wisdom of the discontinuance.  Occasionally, members lack the perspective to make this acknowledgment or to accept discontinuance, and they may even try to convince the annual conference not to vote for discontinuance.  The wisdom of our system is that the authority for discontinuing a congregation resides in the annual conference, whose members are able to see the bigger picture, rather than in the congregation, whose members sometimes have difficulty being realistic or keeping a focus on the missional responsibility of the Church.

In his Commencement Address of 2011, The Translatability of the Christian Gospel, Dr. Timothy Tennant, the President of Asbury Theological Seminary, stated, "North America is on the verge of the most stunning collapst of churches in the history of the country."  But he also stated, "North America is also, simultaneously, moving into one of the most dynamic phases of fresh church planting in our history."  I think both statements are true.  Congregations which served Christ's cause well in the past will either transform or discontinue.  At the same time, the Church must vigorously plant new congregations which are able to fulfill its mission today.  While all of this is very painful for many of us, we need to be aware that God is re-arranging the Christian map, and that the call to mission must be the defining feature of the Church and every congregation at this moment in history.

Comments

1. Richard Nichols wrote on 5/19/2011 12:00:00 AM
Thank You Bishop for being open to sharing on this "heart wrenching" topic. It is sad to see a congregation come to a point of seperation. It is not as sad as it is to see a congregation lose "vision" or worse, not have a "vision" at all. We must always strive to be faithful and maintain unquestioned dedication to our true purpose. When that purpose is not front and center, we have no purpose.
2. ZC Moore wrote on 5/31/2011 12:00:00 AM
Your third paragraph makes an interesting point but I am part of a church that does share that mission. However its congregation was told (for the first time) in the last 6 weeks that it was up for closure. Can you explain to me why such little time has been given to a congregation.
3. Jim Hinchee wrote on 6/9/2011 1:49:31 PM
I truly believe that if the United Methodist Church pursued immersion baptism and baptismals as part of their service by the very teaching and examples of Jesus and John the Baptist in the scriptures that we would then attract more folks, families, and above all and primarily have committments of salvation. Let's face it, transfers of letter and new borns are basically the growth of the United Methodist Church. Let's provide our congregations and communities with this beautiful and Holy example of part of becoming a Christian and begin gaining converts and members.
4. Bill Clark wrote on 6/9/2011 8:05:40 PM
Are the members of the Annual Conference able to see the bigger picture enabling them to be realistic or keep a focus on the missional responsibility of the Church when relatively little objective information about a discontinuance is shared with them? As a case in point, the motion for discontinuance, an involuntary closing, of First United Methodist Church of Tampa did little to convince me that either the District or the Conference extended the kind of support or encouragement needed to enable the church to move beyond their current state. Yes, concern over the viability of the ministry of First Tampa was initiated in 2007 and again in 2009. However, it appears First Tampa’s plans developed by the church’s leadership for serving new missional needs of the community and achieving missional vitality and financial self-sufficiency from congregational giving were not considered viable by the District. The motion presented at Annual Conference stated that the proposed missional and self-sufficiency plans for First Tampa offered by the church leadership were not viable or sustainable. From the discontinuance motion, it sounds like vital ministry development options for First Tampa were reviewed by New Church Development, the Center for Congregational Excellence, and “other experts on church growth, transformation, and new ministry development,” but there was no indication those options were specifically shared with the church. Were suggestions or resources offered which would have helped make the church’s plans acceptable? Was a church planting team, including an age-appropriate clergy, assigned to the church to assist, side-by-side, in revitalization? Was an objective of discontinuance already set in place? Obviously the District feels there are opportunities for ministry growth as evidenced by their commitment as stated in the motion to the creation of a vital, healthy ministry in downtown Tampa that will continue the legacy of First Tampa and by their invitation to any member of the current congregations to join them. Could the District have achieved the goal of ministry growth without discontinuance and the transfer of assets if they provided the appropriate resources or acted even sooner? Has downtown Tampa and the Florida Conference lost the name and legacy of one of its earliest Florida churches? While the deed in done as respects First Tampa, perhaps the comments and questions above should be considered before the next discontinuance. Bill Clark First - Spring Hill
5. Chet Klinger wrote on 6/17/2011 11:22:38 AM
On the Saturday the DS and the Lakeland team got up to present their motion to close the First UMC in Tampa, I thought I witnessed a Goliath vs. David event, except this time Goliath won. While other DSs merely presented their motions and hands were called and it was over in short order, the Conference and District somehow gave us the impression that they were about to face a warrior mightier than themselves. Therefore they needed to bring out all their big guns and fire off all of their broadsides, and yet gave those in opposition to the closing a simple derringer to defend their church. Something did not smell right, then and there. The more the dialogue wentb on the more I decided to vote against the closing. I learned this church was perhaps the first Christian church in this part of Florida with a legacy of seeding many churches and it did not make sense to me to sell off its assets in a depressed economy such as this. I could not see why there was such a lack of interest to transform the existing church into the church it needed to be to achieve the missions the DS outlined. I could not see why it took so many speakers, Power Point presentations, and valuable time at this conference away from far more important matters to even lift up the motion. So much discussion before the motion to the point of near abomination, and so little discussion after the motion, made me highly suspicious of the church's real motives for closing this church. This should be a wake up call for all of our churches. God bless. Chet Klinger - Anona UMC, Largo
6. Caroline Roberts wrote on 6/29/2011 12:00:00 AM
The Mission of FUMC: "Go Make Disciples of Jesus Christ"- Matthew 28: 18-20. The Vision of FUMC, as part of the body of Christ, we are loving, caring, Multi-Cultural fellowship. We are led by the Holy Spirit, and are centered in Christ. In Christian friendship, we seek to serve and reach out to all persons to love, nurture, and support everyone. Learn and grow together in prayer, worship, and celebration. All are welcome to make a difference in the community. Blessings, First UMC Tampa. I am a member of what used to be First United Methodist Church of Tampa. As members of our church we did nor feel we were dead so tried to fight the conferince when they wanted us to voluntarily close our doors. It seems to me that when the Methodist Place Board voted to sell the senior complex across the street from our church our troubles began. we never owned the property where Methodist Place was built we only gave spiritual support several of our members live there.The board of Methodist Place voted to give the proceeds from the sale of Methodist Place to FUMC Tampa. The amount turned out to be over four million dollars. The confrence holds everything we own in trust so why did our DS have to convince our congregation that she would hold this money in "Trust". I said at the time that I had never heard of this happening before. It was a precedent never encountered before. The only way the district could get the money was to discontinue FUMC Tampa. The neighborhood is in the process of revitalization. People are moving back to North Central Tampa city to be closer to their work. Our members may not be as affluent as they once were but they are still chidren of GOD. We are very hurt at what has been done to FUMC Tampa. I hope that this never happens to another church. It seems like the church is more intrested in closing churches than helping them.The confrence has taken away our future. Caroline Tolle Roberts, Daughter of Rev. Dr. Joe A. Tolle and Elizabeth Tolle
Bear Lake United Methodist - Apopka

Headlines

Connections/Opportunities

Conversations/Blogs