The headline made national news, “Struggling Minnesota Church Asks Older Members to Leave.” The truth is a little more complicated. Cottage Grove United Methodist Church is a part of the two-campus church known as the Grove United Methodist Church in MN. Cottage Grove had been struggling for many years, and repeated efforts to revitalize the congregation had failed. The congregation had become too small to afford a pastor and the weekly sermon was given by a lay minister. The church was in survival mode, and the prospects did not look good.
The leadership of the Grove UMC, the mother church of Cottage Grove, is implementing what is called a re-launch or re-plant of the struggling congregation. The church is going to close in June and re-open later in the year with a new pastor skilled in developing new worship styles and new programming. As such the existing members were asked to move to an alternative worship space for 15-18 months. According to the CNN article, the congregation’s leaders have a specific mission in mind, and they want the new church to be made of people who share that vision. “… The new community may not be the best fit for everyone.”[1]
Imagine being told your church was going to close and be relaunched, that you need to find an alternative place to worship for the next 15-18 months, and that the new church may not be the best fit for you. I can only imagine how that played among those who called the church home. It may not have been what was reported, telling elderly members to go away, but it had to be very painful.
Contrary to much church growth wisdom, small is not necessarily bad and big is not necessarily good. Despite what we might be tempted to think, large churches are not the norm in the United States. 57% of churches average less than 100 in worship every week. 21% average fewer than 50. Small congregations are typical, not extraordinary. There should be no sense of shame, no sense of inadequacy about a congregation being small. Small congregations can offer a sense of community that is often missing in larger churches. In fact, larger churches have to be very intentional about creating community because it is more difficult to achieve there. There are important gifts the small church brings to the Church, and these gifts are not to be ignored.
Looking from the outside at the situation in Cottage Grove the word “ignored” seems appropriate. The church members had no sense of control over their own destiny. It appears that the partner congregation saw a problem, investigated a solution, implemented it, and informed the congregation. That process is a recipe for disaster. Without being part of the decision to close the church and without being part of the plans for the future, no wonder members reacted the way they did. They most surely felt as if they were being asked to leave so a different demographic could be reached.
The pastors of the larger congregation, Grove UMC, truly did not want to be seen as getting rid of the former congregation. The process, however, communicated something else. After the news broke, the leaders of Grove UMC wrote a letter to the members of the congregation.[2] The letter discussed the struggles of the congregation and even the possibility of closing the congregation. Determined to avoid closure, Grove UMC charted a new course: replant. While replanting a struggling church is an effective tool, nowhere in the letter does it appear that the members of Cottage Grove UMC were asked their opinion. They did not seem to be involved in their congregation’s future, at all. They were simply told what the decision was. The letter did state the importance of the members of Cottage Grove to the Grove UMC, but the actions of the leadership did not treat them as important at all. Giving people a voice in the future of their church is vital to a healthy ministry. Of course, as a Baptist, I believe that every individual member is responsible to God to discern God’s leading in the life of the congregation. So, undertaking such a large operation as this is without involving the whole of the church is anathema to me.
While believing in the goodwill of the Grove UMC, I do believe they have bought into some false dichotomies. They seem to believe that they could not build on what was already there: a traditional church with traditional worship. It is true that contemporary worship is on the ascendency, but it is not true that traditional worship must be eliminated for the purposes of church growth. Church growth can happen in any worship setting. In other words, traditional worship is itself the problem when a church struggles. Simply changing worship styles will not bring growth either. I know of a church in Durham, NC that was a strong church. They decided that they wanted to be a “mega-church,” to better reach their community. They changed their name and worship style, and after 5 years they were smaller than they were before.
They also seem to have bought into the false older/younger dichotomy. Every congregation wants to reach young families. We believe the message of the Gospel will save them and enrich their lives. We believe the Gospel is vital for them and their children. So, naturally, we try to find ways to reach them. If we are not careful though, this becomes a problem. Carey Nieuwhof, a church leadership and growth expert, has stated that churches need to have people on stage that reflect the “target audience” of their church. “Put 75% of people on the platform in the same age range as the people you’re trying to reach.”[3]Since every church is trying to reach young people, then most of the faces should be young, in his logic. Whether his idea is right as a marketing principle or not it most surely wrong as a theological concept. We should not try to hide older faces because we are trying to attract younger ones. We should celebrate God’s goodness to every age. Other congregations have changed their theological emphases to attract young people. I have on many times heard, “millennials will not go to a church that believes. . .” Changing our theology to reach a target audience smacks of idolatry. Instead of seeing young people and older people as competing audiences, we need to see each of them as part of God’s great family. Young people and older people have a lot to learn from each other, and the church can provide a community that makes mutual learning possible.
Grove UMC also seems to believe that the former members are impervious to change. It is true that small churches are difficult to change. It is also true that sometimes as we age we do get set in our ways. It, however, does not have to be so. There are a few factors that make people resistant to change. Some of us just don’t like to change. Others of us have so much invested in the status quo that we do not like change. Others are wanting to see the specifics of change before making up our minds. These factors exist without regard to age. Further, they exist without regard to church size. If people are part of an exciting vision of the future then resistance to change decreases immensely.
Grove UMC is now in a very difficult spot. The spotlight is surely difficult to bear. I wish them well. I hope that they can find resources to help them through the transition, and I hope that they find healing.
[1]https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/22/us/grove-united-methodist-church-replanting-trnd/index.html
[2]https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.cloversites.com/64/646406ac-22f9-4fb5-98d3-02b4120ea138/documents/Congregational_Letters.pdf
[3]https://careynieuwhof.com/want-to-reach-new-people-these-10-habits-set-your-church-back/
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In