A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life

A Weblog Dedicated to the Discussion of the Christian Faith and 21st Century Life
___
I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe in order to understand. For this also I believe, –that unless I believed, I should not understand.-- St. Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109)

Monday, October 29, 2007

Cluster Church Conferences

Yesterday afternoon, our church had its annual Church Conference (it's a UM thing) with several other churches. I do not know how widespread the practice of holding cluster Church Conferences instead of individual Conferences at each church, but I have a concern that the cluster practice is subtly undermining the importance of the Church Conference. Consider the following:

1. No matter how much I talk about the significance of attendance, the number of people who show up for a cluster Church Conference is considerably lower than when the church has its own Conference. Participation is even more sparse when the Conference is at another church.

2. It is difficult to spend the kind of time necessary highlighting the ministries of each church in any kind of significant way. All we end up sharing are some brief snippets.

3. It is impossible to deal with contentious matters when they exist, such as issues with the budget or nominations. What congregation wants to have an argument in front of other churches.

4. The very nature of the cluster Church Conference suggests its lack of importance. One parishioner in a former congregation, who had faithfully attended Church Conferences over the years, actually told our DS, when he made the move to clusters, that if it wasn't important enough for the Superintendent to come to our church to conduct our meeting, it was not important enough for him to drive 15 miles to attend a meeting, in which the number of churches participating would make it impossible to get anything important accomplished. I have heard similar remarks made by other church members over the years.

5. The Church Conference is the one time a congregation can expect a visit from the Superintendent. With the cluster Church Conference, it is possible for a congregation never to have a visit from the DS, making the Annual Conference appear remote from the local church. Thus the connectional nature of our denomination appears less so.

I know that cluster Church Conferences make it easier for the District Superintendents who are overworked, and with the reduction of districts in many conferences giving the DS more churches to oversee, cluster Conferences help to alleviate the workload. Nevertheless, if cluster Church Conferences become the norm, the true significance of the Church Conference will become a thing of the past.

15 comments:

Richard H said...

We started doing clusters last year. You're right: the major characteristic is very low attendance.

The ds tells us that main idea of the cc now is to offer inspiration (new ministry ideas they hear from other churches), encouragement, and fellowship (food is involved). I think the practice of "sharing good ideas" is over-rated. In my experiences most churches know what they need to do, but two obstacles stand in the way. 1. They won't repent. 2. They won't change their ways of doing things.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Richard:

I have nothing to add to your insightful thoughts.

Thanks for sharing them.

Anonymous said...

Charge Conferences are a relic of the past.

We need to stop doing them.

They are basically a dog and pony show to impress the D.S.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Anonymous:

Your comments are too skeptical for me. I do think they continue to have an important purpose, but I fear that purpose will be lost if the cluster model continues.

Of course, I suppose someone could make the point that the cluster model may morph the Church Conference into something different, but still valuable, though it may not be an event that John Wesley would recoginize.

I have no interest in impressing my DS, but I am accountable to her and will submit to her authority as with the bishop; and that is something important in our connectional system.

revjimparsons said...

In my last district we had cluster CCs. In my current we have single CCs. I think there is merit in both. Yes, the DS should be involved locally and at least see their congregations once a year. My DS is great and belives this is the best way. So he starts CCs in Sept, so he can be finished before Thanksgiving. I saw his schedule and it is CRAZY!!!

Yet, to save the DS time is not the only reason for having cluster CCs. In my first cluster CC there was a greater sense of connectionalism. I thought that attendance is low but for those who did come they connected with other UMC churches they probably pass daily. The second one was less enlightening and more 'in and out.'

Here are some facts. Our DSs are overworked and over stretched. Whether you do a cluster or not CCs can be a waste of time if not taken seriously by everyone. It is also a opporutnity for the greater congregation to know how the greater UMC works and the madness behind our method.

Of course there are plus and minuses to both. Good topic though Allan.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Rev J.

Thanks for your thoughts that help us to see both sides of the issue.

Brian Vinson said...

We don't have any opportunity for debate or discussion on any of the matters at the Cluster CC - we have been told to come prepared with everything already voted on so that we can do a rubber stamp YES vote at conference.

As for #2, we have been told that the highlights of ministry should take 2 minutes. 2 minutes.

I'll blog on it next week - ours is Monday.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Thief:

I look forward to your post.

Anonymous said...

While I can see the potential fellowship and connectional benefits of cluster conferences, I also see a large potential for all of the problems Allan has pointed out.

Perhaps we could try some other tactics to get churches working more together and use other techniques to reduce the load on the DS.

My local church is conducting its charge conference with another church this year for the first time, but our pastor is conducting theirs and theirs is conducting ours.

Despite the efforts at democracy in the UM church, I think many members don't feel that their input has that much impact, possibly because too often decisions are effectively made by a few key people and then blessed by the open meeting. I have mixed feelings, however, because I've also seen the other extreme where a church council turned into something just short of a riot!

I guess the problems are easier to find than to fix, but that doesn't make them any less problems.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Henry:

Yes, I think what is in order is some creative thinking here. There is no doubt that our DSs are overworked. It is not necessarily critical that they lead every church conference; yet they are the most significant contact between connectional system and each local church.

If we are willing to give and take, I am sure we can find a way to work through the conundrum.

Michael said...

We do them in Arkansas as well. I'm torn because while I agree with those opposed to clusters, I also see an almost collosal waste of the DS's time with the smaller rural churches when only one or two persons care enough to attend the regular charge conference. And in Arkansas, there is a huge number of rural churches "in the woods". Not to suggest they aren't important, but I also happen to do secular work in transportation/logistics; the cluster makes sense purely from that perspective which is, in this day of substantial energy costs, highly significant.

Allan R. Bevere said...

Michael:

Thanks for your observations. I can see where in certain places the cluster Conference makes sense.

john said...

Some say I am too young and don't know any better. I look forward to our conference. Of course, the paperwork that surrounds it is a drag, but in the end, to me, it's a celebration of how we've been able to be the church.

That said, I would agree that cluster conferences can take away from that. Our district and conference provide other venues for idea sharing and fellowship.

At the same time we need to take time to be honest in our evaluation of our work.

"Charge Conferences are a relic of the past.

We need to stop doing them.

They are basically a dog and pony show to impress the D.S."

So many of the reports that end up in our conference packets seem to validate that statement. What I mean to say is that I read so many generic statements about work areas.

I tell our members that I bet they'll learn something about the work of the church they didn't know if they attend a conference. **And now returning from going off on a tangent** Cluster conferences, I believe, do not allow for us (pastors and leaders) to remain intentional in communicating the real work of each church.

That's my story. Stay blessed...john

Allan R. Bevere said...

Rev. Fletch:

Church Conferences should be something to look forward to. If they are done intentionally and if they pay attention to the important things, they will be interesting gatherings.

I am just not sure the cluster format can accomplish that.

Brian Vinson said...

I've posted now... I thought ours was a lot better than the individual charge conferences I've been a part of...