Jedi Rev

The personal blog of Gordon Matheson.

Fractional Church

What Carl is saying here is not just a US phenomenon.   Smaller churches this side of the pond are struggling with the same issue – how can we afford to pay for ministry, and will that mean having a fraction of a minister?

For, like, as long as I’ve been a minister (and then some, sorry a lot more some) my denomination has been looking at what we call non-stipendiary or what Carl’s contacts call bivocational ministries.   That is, Pastors typically have two jobs: they serve their congregations as they can; but their main income comes from their other occupation, whether car mechanic, teacher or whatever.

The bottom line is this – this is coming to a Scottish Church near you soon.   Maybe it has already, and if so, comments would be appreciated.  My gut feeling is that this is a second best option, and doing things that are likely going to lead to it, hasten it, are probably not wise.

The Scottish urban scene is not the same, mega churches of the scale Carl talks about just don’t exist here.   My concern is that in remote, rural areas another factor is driving the move to needing fractions of ministers, and that is fractional church.   Fractional church is when the church needlessly divides up into smaller fractions – all allegedly holding the same doctrine.   There is another name.

Stupid remote/rural denominationalism 

This last week finally saw the birth of a “new church” in my neck of the woods.   The chaps behind it are (understandably) narked at the Church of Scotland’s trajectory away from Scripture.   But, rather than humbly join up with one of the other faithful, but struggling, denominations – with whom they would seem to theologically agree – a new fellowship was spawned.

This hits a whole number of issues dear to my heart.

It’s anti local church.   The reason the new thing shouldn’t directly affect us is that it’s a 40 mile round trip from my door, and further than a half dozen other fellowships, all meeting in sparsely populated rural areas.   Fractional church means many Christians will now drive out of thier local community, where they know their neighbours; where family circles are tight; etc. to join another fellowship that’s more to their “taste” (used deliberately, because there is no doctrinal distinction between these fellowships).   Thanks, but just explain how this helps rural evangelism, where the truth has long been this: you have the most impact where you live?

It’s anti unity in the Gospel.   To be fair, I can see why leaving the Church of Scotland was desirable, but most of the people leaving that denomination locally in these parts joined it within the last 5-10 years.   Has it deteriorated since then, really?   And did the Free Church guys not offer some flexibility in traditional form of worship for the sake of local unity?   Thanks, but just explain how setting up new churches helps unity?   Even if we take unity at its loosest extent, we’re talking unity in the work of the Gospel.   I fail to see how fractional church is even serving that goal, when those abandoning their local churches are often abandoning the Gospel work these churches are doing.

It’s anti fellowship.   I love it when people break away from a fellowship, and pretend that it’s a small thing to not be able to overcome differences.   If we follow Paul’s teaching in Philippians, fellowship is, among other things, a sharing in suffering.   In these remote rural areas Christians are suffering.   The depopulation alone means younger Christians are rare – so stripping them out of fellowships to gather in one place seems not to have true fellowship at its heart.   There is a lot of sadness in these days where growth is small, where Gospel witness and light seems to be flickering.   Fractional church does nothing to help this and it hurts those who don’t share the same “taste”.

It’s anti Christian education.   Satan loves to undermine what we’re doing when it serves God’s purposes.   Just imagine these rural communities being blessed with their churches running  a Sunday School jointly – remember, there’s no practical doctrinal difference to speak of.   That might just help overcome generations of denominational hostility and misunderstanding in the Scottish Highlands.   But now, it’s threatened because some of the staff feel they couldn’t try to overcome the pull towards factional church, and have to drive away to another area.   Thanks, but just explain how this is going to help future generations of kids understand Christian doctrine, e.g. the unity o the church?

Count the Cost

My point is that spawning new factional churches in remote rural areas, rather than working out differences, is actually bad for the Gospel.   Urban strategy might be different – the numbers are hugely different for one thing.   But rural work is not helped by this.
It means more Christians in smaller churches, who will not be able to afford to pay a pastoral ministry to do all the distinctly pastor-led ministry that rural work demands.
It means more Christians in smaller churches able to organise less effective servant ministry to the needy in the same community.
It means more Christian denominations to confuse an already confused, superstitious and mocking population.
It means Christians, who actually have an awful lot in common, holding on to denominational suspicions for longer.
It means more Christians having to fall back on untrained teachers, as supply preachers, and so on – some of it might good, but hardly a recipe embraced by the Church, who have for hundreds of years recognised that theological education was necessary for the good of the Church.
It means more older Christians marginalised, as they get left behind, holding onto perhaps a misplaced but real sense of connection to buildings and places of worship they loved and had put serious effort into maintaining.

Yeah, fractional church is nothing to do with the Gospel, and will just mean less ministry, by more divided groups, served by distracted ministers, and with limited cohesion, sorry, unity.

(And note, this post doesn’t even address the macro-denominational issues Fractionalism like this will pose for the Scottish church scene – new denomination ahoy!)

Advertisement

Thursday, 5 January, 2012 - Posted by | Christian Unity, Church

2 Comments »

  1. The situation in the USA is quite different. Leaving aside the issue of the mega-churches, our small pastor-less churches are often within travelling distance of other churches. I’m not suggesting the people travelling; the ministers can travel!

    This is why linkages can work. In the North / East of Glasgow the Presbytery would like to initiate a “team ministry” covering four local Free Church congregations sharing at least two ministers.

    Getting supply for vacant churches is not too great a problem. But what we need is continuity of supply. Bishopbriggs have enjoyed and been blessed by four excellent years of “stated supply” from the retired minister Tim Donachie who has now retired for the second time. “Stated supply” could be provided by other than retired men – what about students, missionaries on leave, etc

    As an ordained minister who is also an elder in Bishopbriggs I know the real difficulty of working full-time and also providing supply a couple of Sundays per month. There is no substitute for full-time ministers able to give time to prayer, study, preparation and pastoral care. What is often not realised is that it is non-sermon study that feeds back into pulpit work and enriches such ministry. Bi-vocational pastors are at best the second choice, although they may be necessary in the short term. Personally I would rather see a church share a full-time minister than depend on the availability of a bi-vocational ministry.

    Comment by Robert M Walker | Thursday, 5 January, 2012 | Reply

  2. Robert, thanks for the comment.

    I’ve no experience of urban work to speak of, but my guess is that the dynamics in the central belt are very different. I see what you’re saying about the minister travelling, but in our rural context that just spreads his impact very thinly indeed. For example, in rural work, school connections are important – but trying to have good school connection with 3 primary schools, the furthest being 20 miles from my house, and all the while “competing” with the input of two other ministers, means my usefulness in these schools is diluted to the point of being minimal. Suppose we could come to an agreement whereby the three of us took one school each?

    In the Highlands, each denomination is trying to do everything, everywhere, and actually achieving very little, because resources are being too diluted.

    Here in Skye, the main issue is that on a lot, if not all, the main areas of doctrine, smaller congregations across different denominations agree. There are generally questions about epistemology – but for the most part, we all accept the Bible as the only rule of faith. In Theology proper, we are all Trinitarian. In Christology, we all agree Jesus is God, and get the Nicene Creed. In Pneumatology, we generally agree the Spirit is a person who comes in to dwell in the hearts of believers at conversion, and is not a “force” or later product of subsequent experience, and again we all agree on the Filioque clause. In Soteriology, we are fully agreed on Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In Ecclesiology we agree on our understanding of the Sacraments, Presbyterian church government, the plurality and parity of elders, and for the most part accept that the ordination of women to the office of elder is not to be pursued. In the Highlands, you have to work very hard to find areas of doctrine where we disagree. All that leaves you with is style.

    Is style a biblical reason for disunity? The effect of this is that increasingly, CofS, FC, FC(C), APC, and now the SRP and splinter groups from the CofS are trying to effectively maintain ministries across very broad areas. Each small, struggling congregation is being served by more thinly spread ministers. The obvious solution is to put denominational differences behind us – and get all these groups in one village together under one pastor. This narrows his particular focus to one area, its better stewardship if nothing else. And all that gets in the way is pride, which stops all of us from humbly working together.

    I grant you, the Central Belt situation is very different – doctrinally, there’s little in common with the church across the street. So the solution I see for the Highlands isn’t a solution for Glasgow.

    The one other thing I wonder about is this: is supply preaching going to prosper the church long term? In the Highlands, it certainly doesn’t. Almost every church living off supply preaching is in decline – and that includes churches where there’s a minister who does little besides supply preaching, because he’s doing supply preaching at three different villages, which used to have three ministers, and still act like they are three congregations. My hunch is that it takes someone on the ground to actually encourage the active pursuit of the lost locally. Supply preachers driving in don’t normally do that, and the only place I can think of where that was different had a very committed elder on the ground doing the “encouraging the active pursuit of the lost” work. My guess is that urban work will be the same – so whether it’s bi-vocational, or shared, the nett effect is pretty much the same – less “ministry” is done in a focused meaningful way.

    Sorry for the long reply.
    G.

    Comment by Jedi Rev | Friday, 6 January, 2012 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.