Creative Commons Attribution CC BY-SA 4.0
I came across a magazine article recently that featured a picture of a luxury car along with the article title. Despite the car, I initially misread the title. Here is the actual title:
THE MAINSTREAM CAR BRANDS SELLING THE FEWEST VEHICLES IN AMERICA
You can see where my mind tends to focus because as soon as I saw “Mainstream,” I assumed it was about mainstream denominations that reach the fewest people in America! My immediate fear was that the winner of this distinction might be the United Methodist Church. I was relieved when I realized that the article was actually about cars. However, it led me to thinking about what lessons their story might have for congregations.
The article is not necessarily about the companies selling the most cars but rather those that are now offering the fewest vehicle options for purchase. Chrysler now offers two – both minivans. Their last luxury sedan – long associated with the Chrysler brand -- was the 2023 Chrysler 300 (pictured above).
What Changed for American Luxury Car Dealers
There was a time when a Chrysler (or Cadillac or Buick) dealer knew there was a loyal following for their most profitable cars. While they did not sell the large numbers of automobiles that dealers offering multiple car brands did, or those selling more mass-market options, they knew they had a solid core of repeat buyers. Furthermore, even if they were in areas of slow population growth, they were sure they could count on a few loyalists for their car brand moving to their region where their dealership alone offered the vehicle those new loyalists wanted to drive. Providing good service for these customers and their cars kept a personal connection with them between the buyers’ new car purchases. A member of a church where I was pastor had a one brand dealership in a small community. He told me once that when he ordered the more expensive vehicles from his brand, he usually had someone’s name in mind as the future buyer. He knew his customers that well.
What happened? Things changed. Many of those loyal customers never bought other brands but did not buy any more cars at all. They were no longer able to drive or had died. Their children were buying other brands of cars. Fewer of their brand loyalists arrived in town as newcomers. And even those who had unfailingly bought the dealership’s cars began to be intrigued by new luxury brands, including some from car makers not previously associated with high end vehicles. Finally, the cars the dealers had relied upon went out of production as car companies began to narrow their focus to some niche offerings where they could still be competitive. I know this explanation oversimplifies a complex history. But the basic point is that many dealers for traditional American car models found themselves now offering their two models while a Toyota dealership nearby offered over 20.
Church Leaders May Identify with Those Car Dealers
When church leaders see some long-established car dealerships with unused space where previously their wide range of offerings were displayed, they understand. Church leaders see their unused Sunday school classrooms and unoccupied pews on Sunday morning. They remember days past when more people moved to their communities looking for their church because of its “brand”: that is, its denominational affiliation. Even those who attended other churches treated their church identity with higher respect and regard than seems the case today.
It is easy for church leaders to feel that the world has moved in new directions while their church has stayed the same. Decisions about all sorts of congregational life were made in previous times when those decisions fit circumstances of that era. Those practices still feel comfortable to those long shaped by their familiar repetition. Those for whom new approaches may be more relevant are not present, so there is little advocacy for change.
But change is possible. The pandemic, with all its challenges for churches, showed that even the smallest churches can do things they previously would have thought impossible. But the pandemic also reminds us that those changes are not easy or without tension and a great deal of new learning. The challenge for churches today is to find ways to innovate without the presence of a pandemic or similar external disruption.
Congregations and Their Communities
Churches have a natural internal pull toward their established patterns, current members, existing programs, and their history and culture. Those are powerful gravitational pulls, especially for congregations in existence for a long time. It wasn’t always that way. In the early days of any new congregation, whether 30 years or 200 years ago, the movement is predominantly external. Those outside the church represent the church’s future, if it is to have one. Virtually all energy is directed toward those currently unknown to church leaders. Time and effort go to connecting with others, building relationships, gathering for worship, and establishing bonds around the guiding mission of the church.
However, it does not take long for the internal pulls to begin, as they should. With more people, there are inevitable pastoral care needs to be addressed. As small groups and educational programs begin, they need attention. More volunteers help with the many weekly tasks while requiring organization and support. Facility issues and early personnel decisions take increasing amounts of time. Yet these internal responsibilities can still be in appropriate proportion to the external outreach. But in 5, 10, or 20 years, without careful attention, the proportion of time and energy from members and staff will flip almost totally to internal realities.
Also in those early years of a new church, a distinctive congregational culture is emerging. It happens much more quickly than one might assume. “Who we are and how we do things around here” becomes established and taken for granted. Some of that culture is shaped by the mission that is driving the formation of the new congregation. Parts come from the founding pastor and early leaders. But much of what the church becomes in those early years is shaped by the nature of the church’s context and its people. Style of worship, the nature of preaching, music, service times, and many other patterns develop and are modified to fit the needs of the participants. That dynamic creativity of the early years is likely to recede at some point in the future, particularly if the church has passed its growth stage and especially if it is in a season of prolonged decline. The close connections to the people the church most hoped to reach no longer impacts decision making as it once did.
A Congregational Engagement Matrix
In my experience, vital congregations passionately pursue two important directions. They connect people with God through worship, study, and faith formation. They also connect with the people God has given them in their communities. Both dimensions are essential. Even when churches maintain a strong focus on the spiritual growth of their members, they may have inadvertently become less knowledgeable about those around them who do not attend. It is not surprising to find that a new church that started six months before will have their finger on the pulse of the community far better than another church that has been in the community for over 100 years.
This matrix can help congregations mark where they think they are regarding two dimensions:
Engagement with God (Beliefs, Mission, Values, Faith Formation) – This factor involves a congregation’s theological and historical identity, their focus on faith formation and spiritual growth, and the impact of its faith on congregational actions.
Engagement with Community – This factor involves a congregation’s engagement with the community including their knowledge of the current context, extent of connections to leaders and groups, and regular pathways of interaction and contribution to the common good of the community.
The “Here We Stand” Church (HIGH Engagement with God; LOW Engagement with Community)
The “Here We Stand” Church is clear on their beliefs, their theological and denominational heritage, the purpose God has for the church, and their values developed out of their congregational history. However, this church is not attuned to what is happening in other churches since that has no impact on what they should do. Likewise, they know little about larger social and cultural trends among generations and others not currently represented in their church. Again, those trends do not change who they are or what they do. They have a distinct history, theology, worship, and polity. Any person looking for what they offer, they are ready to welcome.
The “Lost the Way” Church (LOW Engagement with God; LOW Engagement with Community)
The “Lost the Way” Church is rare and sad. Their theological and denominational heritage and faith formation no longer are strong factors in their life. At the same time, they show little interest in their community and its future. They want their church to continue, but no longer is there a discernable vision for the future. There is little sense of a special calling God has given them.
The “Activity Trap” Church (LOW Engagement with God; HIGH Engagement with Community)
The “Activity Trap” Church stands in sharp contrast with the “Here We Stand” Church. The “Activity Trap” Church does not have a strong theological identity and focus on faith formation. Their identity is not with doctrinal commitments or even their denominational distinctiveness. On the other hand, this church is known well in the community. Its facilities are well-used, and the parking lot is filled most days and nights. Some of the activities are church sponsored, but many are not. Few can be linked directly to the church’s mission statement, which is seldom discussed.
The “Loving God, Engaging Others” Church (HIGH Engagement with God; HIGH Engagement with Community)
The “Loving God, Engaging Others” Church lives in a dynamic tension as it seeks to hold together a high commitment to theological and denominational commitments and ongoing faith formation at the same time they engage their changing communities and emerging generations. Their goal is not so much balance but a way of viewing both their identity and their environment. They always look at their identity through the lens of what they are learning about what’s going on now around them. By the same token, they view their context through the lens of their theological identity, values and faith formation. They ask questions such as: “How can our worship be responsive to what we are learning in ways consistent with our theological values?” or “What implications do social patterns and trends have for how we provide Christian education or youth ministry?”
What Might This Mean for Our Church?
No church fits any one category perfectly. A church that fits one quadrant perfectly would be more a caricature than a living congregational organism that defies such neat categories. However, with some reflection together, church members and leaders can discern some tendencies their church has toward one direction or another represented by the matrix.
The matrix itself and certainly the designations for the four types of churches matter little compared to vital conversations where the two tendencies of churches are explored for a congregation’s own situation. Vital congregations stay attuned to and guided by both their identity and what is going on around them. Each informs the other. Some in the church will be more attuned to one dimension or the other. There is no reason for them to oppose each other, but instead they are called to help make sure each perspective informs the other. Only by doing so will they be able to serve not only current members but also the people God has given them in their communities.
The Rev. Lovett H. Weems Jr.
Wesley Theological Seminary Photo
United Methodist Focus is the Substack blog of the Rev. Dr. Lovett H. Weems, Jr., distinguished professor of church leadership emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC. He came to Wesley in 2003 as the founding director of the Wesley’s Lewis Center for Church Leadership after eighteen years as president of Saint Paul School of Theology in Kansas City. Previously he was a pastor in Mississippi for many years. He is the author of many books on church leadership that have had a broad appeal to a large constituency of leaders in both the public and private sectors.