Kruse Kronicle

The Coming Death of National Denominations

—

by

mwkruse
in , , ,

The Columbia Partnership: The Coming Death of National Denominations George Bullard

Many national denominational organizations in North America are dying. The causes and signs of their demise are obvious, but few are choosing to make wise decisions to morph into 21st century denominations. Too many are choosing to recommit to old patterns or suicidal patterns of denominational life.

The death of national denominations is not imminent; it is not coming in the next five to ten years. However, if current trends continue some national denominations could reach subsistence level within 25 years. The death of national denominational structures does not necessarily mean the death of the denomination itself or its regional or middle judicatory expressions. These latter expressions may thrive in some locations.

Here is a beginning list of things national denominations are failing to do or succeeding in doing to drag themselves down. What would you add to this list?

Denominations are dying because of their failure to do the following things. …

… Denominations are dying because of their success in doing the following things. …

From my vantage point of serving on the General Assembly Mission Council of the Presbyterian Church, U.S.A., over the last six years I think Bullard pretty much nails it.

Comments

4 responses to “The Coming Death of National Denominations”

  1. Travis Greene Avatar
    Travis Greene

    I found this bit interesting:
    “…national denominations are trying to serve congregations through old concepts that assume national denominations do for congregations what congregations cannot do for themselves. This is a gapology approach that no longer works. The number of things congregations are dependent on their denomination to do are less and less.”
    I wonder how much the ecclesiologies of various denominations impact what the denomination sees itself as being. Is it a loose confederation of congregations? The skeleton on which the congregations hang? Is the denomination simply the church?

    Reply
  2. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    It’s an important question. Presbyterians see the church as more than a confederation of congregations … there are expressions of the church that transcend the work of individual congregations. The crisis for Presbyterians is in defining which things are a part of that broader discussion. I think you are right that ecclesiologies do affect how we see the denominational role. But one think is very clear: Regardless of ecclisology, without vibrant congregations you have no denomination.

    Reply
  3. John Hindman Avatar
    John Hindman

    In your experience, where do PCUSA denominational staff and activities fit in with Bullard’s lists? In the light of your belief that Bullard hit the nail on the head, what is your agenda for the GAMC? Best wishes.

    Reply
  4. Michael W. Kruse Avatar
    Michael W. Kruse

    John, the GAMC is trying to define its role IEC … inspire, equip and connect. I think you would find strong agreement that strengthening congregations and helping people find was to tell their stories is paramount.
    When it comes to programming, we are asking what are the types of efforts we do for which there is broad support, engages a lot of people, and which can probably best be done at a national level? Things like Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, Youth Triennium, and some of our International Mission Partnership programs would fit into this category. We are getting a lot of positive feedback from evangelism training and new church development events that bring people together with a team experts and provide opportunities for people to learn from each other.
    Because we are at a national level we can also begin to spot issues around which there is emerging interest. Campus and young adult ministry is one area. There innovative things happening in various locations. How can tell these stories and help people connect who are becoming passionate about this work?
    There many other positive developments but here is the challenge. The GAMC is an agency of the General Assembly, not an independent entity. We exist to carry out the will of General Assembly. Within that mission there is often significant freedom for how mission gets executed but have an obligation to carry the directives given by the G.A.
    Within the broader church there is still very much a sentiment that says unless there is national staff person and a line item in the GAMC budget for my favored ministry, that ministry does not exist and has not been validated. So rather than giving direction about ends to accomplish we sometimes end up with mandated programming that does not line up with the broader needs of the church.
    Furthermore, a significant portion of our funds are restricted funds. To begin new initiatives or expend useful ones requires usually requires unrestricted funds. We are working on better communicating what the GAMC does and at developing other funding sources but it is like walking through a mine field, occasionally angering various groups in the denomination who don’t appreciate shifting realities.
    So I think the GAMC is actually trying to be adaptive within its context but that context has considerable constraints that are beyond the GAMCs control.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Michael W. KruseCancel reply

Discover more from Kruse Kronicle

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading