Pacific Northwest Conference | Jan. 28, 2026
Kathy Neary: Before I continue with this series, I need to point out that I am talking about United Methodist congregations I’ve observed in the Greater Northwest Area that do not have a specific ethnic focus. Our ethnic-serving congregations are in totally different situations that I am not familiar with.
I am sure conversations are being had in these congregations and affinity groups about the future, and sharing insights from all these conversations would be beneficial for everyone.
My other pre-Part 2 comment is that in my first article, I didn’t say to give up worship entirely. I wrote that we Methodists should worship at different churches on Sunday morning.
Since publishing that article, I have received some constructive comments that have made me consider another option. We Methodists need to perfect short worship moments to be held before every small-group meeting, Bible study, meal, justice-planning event, and at the beginning of every justice event—essentially, every time we meet.
I believe that the primary purpose of worship is to help people encounter the presence of God. We should integrate that expectation into everything we do, rather than relegate it to one hour on Sunday morning.
I would love to hear from you, dear readers, about excellent ways to do this integration.
Now back to Patrick’s excellent questions:
Patrick Scriven: In your experience, what are the most significant barriers that keep churches from prioritizing discipleship over maintaining what’s familiar?
Kathy Neary: Right now, the biggest barrier churches face is that our leadership has not been honest with them about their situation. It is hard to face a crisis if one doesn’t know the crisis exists.
There should be clear, often-repeated messages that the traditional model of church building—pastor—congregation, focused on Sunday morning worship, is no longer viable. We cannot accomplish our purpose of being and becoming disciples that transform the world into God’s kingdom with this model.
Often, when I visited small churches that clearly needed to transition to their next incarnation —either by closing or merging with another church—I was told explicitly—or by less-than-subtle hints—that the district superintendents (and often the pastors) did not want the churches to close or merge.
We still view closing churches as a failure, rather than as a necessary step toward the future. We also still view churches as “stand-alone” entities, as if what happens at one church does not affect others.
Once a congregation understands that they must merge or close, or transform in some other way, then they can address the inevitable grief that will come, and the barriers to dealing with change.
Scriven: When people resist change, what are they usually protecting, and how can leaders respond without shaming them?
Neary: I really appreciate this question because it brings in an interesting perspective—namely, that congregations are trying to protect something.
In this wild, unjust, chaotic world we are experiencing, congregations are trying to protect and preserve the one place that makes them feel safe and is comfortingly familiar.
Many congregation members have told me they wish they could give their children and grandchildren the same sense of security, almost none of whom attend church now.
When I am leading worship and ask for “joys and concerns,” someone always mentions a child or grandchild who is having trouble navigating the world. When faced with the closure of a church, these folks wonder who will hold their loved ones in prayer.
This is such a significant concern. Pastors need to acknowledge this deep fear and loss and help their congregations name others. This is the beginning of grief work, which we need to take seriously and train our pastors to lead with compassion and respect.
Scriven: What does it look like to lead congregations through the grief of letting go of a church model that once worked, while still inviting them into a hopeful future?
Neary: First, we need to remember it is not a model of church that the people are letting go of, but a way of life that has fed their souls for many years.
I compare it to the experience of immigrants to a new country who have left behind everything they hold dear, to come to a place that is the definition of foreign, often knowing they will never be able to return to the place they have called “home” all their lives.
Second, we need to tap into existing resources to develop processes for this grief work. By resources, I mostly mean the experts on grief work among our own leaders right now, and experts outside our immediate circles whom we can engage to help us develop our skills in grief work. (A shout-out to Rev. Paul Graves, who tried to get exactly this kind of program going in the recent past.)
Third, we need to realize that the people sitting in our pews are experts at dealing with change. People in their seventies and older have experienced massive, mind-boggling changes during their lifetimes.
We need to engage our older church members in conversations about how they navigated these changes in their lives and ask them for their suggestions about the future of our Church. We have often failed to engage our older adults in the very work they have expertise in and will be most affected by.
Finally, I understand how serious and complex it will be to step into the future. However, the alternative of doing nothing and just rotting away risks our uniquely Methodist perspective on God and life disappearing completely.
That is a loss I would grieve for the rest of my life.
Rev. Kathy Neary serves as Transitional Ministry Developer for the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Conference of The United Methodist Church. She was in dialogue with Patrick Scriven who serves as Director of Communications for the PNW Conference.