|
The establishment of clusters of congregations and ministries under the oversight of cluster teams of laity and clergy provide a new way of being church.
Where did the idea of clusters come from? I offer one person’s retrospective. The story that I shall tell is less a story about the development of a plan than a story about the emergence of a development of thought. Many people contributed to this development – not only all of the members of the Cabinet, but also others who were involved in a long process of discerning the future of the Florida Conference of The United Methodist Church.
As difficult as it may be to believe, it is hard to identify exactly who originated the idea of forming clusters. It is even hard to remember when the specific plan to form clusters was developed. The actual plan was formulated by a task group under the leadership of the Rev. Dr. Jeff Stiggins. The task group was aware of the plans of other annual conferences to form clusters. However, the Florida Conference would not have adopted the formation of clusters as a plan just because the Conference was aware of their existence elsewhere or because other annual conferences had formed them. Clusters became the plan of the Conference in the midst of a process of listening to the people, reflection upon the identity and mission of the Florida Conference, and development of practical strategies to reorient the life of the Conference as part of a plan to create a new structure for the districts.
Listening to the People
When I was assigned to the Florida Area the leaders of the Conference recommended that some of us travel around the Conference to listen to the people. One of the things we heard was a yearning to experience “connection” as something more than an institutional structure. People, especially laity, wanted to experience connection as it is described in The Book of Discipline – “a vital web of interactive relationships.” The question was, How could we change our way of being church so that connection would be experienced in this way?
Affirming the Identity of the Church
Following the listening sessions, the leaders of the Conference proposed the establishment of the Conference Table. Once it was created by the Florida Conference, its first tasks were to write a new Vision Statement and to write a new Mission Statement for the Conference. Both of these Statements declare that it is the aim of United Methodists in Florida to participate in God’s mission of transforming the world through making disciples of Jesus Christ.
In the Vision Statement there is an understanding of the identity of the Church as “one dynamic church with diverse people in many settings.” This language comes from a book that was studied by the Cabinet, Reclaiming the Great Commission (Jossey-Bass) by Claude E. Payne and Hamilton Beazley. Claude Payne was the Episcopal bishop of a diocese in Texas who led his diocese to a new era of fruitfulness in evangelism. A key to their fruitfulness was their understanding of their diocese (similar to an annual conference in The United Methodist Church) as one church of diverse people in many locations. Bishop Payne describes his diocese as one missionary church of which all the congregations are missionary outposts. The Cabinet and I consider Bishop Payne’s understanding of his diocese to be consistent with the polity or church government of The United Methodist Church, especially the annual conference. In The United Methodist Church the annual conference exists to extend the mission of the whole Church throughout one geographical region which is ordinarily a state in The United States of America. Congregations are created as the major way of extending the mission of the Church in a region although there are other ministries, such as campus ministries and service ministries, that are also a part of this effort. None of the congregations or ministries stand alone or apart from the others, but are members of the one Church of diverse people in different locations.
By including in the Vision Statement this understanding of the identity of the annual conference we were making a statement about our ecclesiology (doctrine of the church) and our polity (church government). It is an understanding of the identity of the Church that leads us away from congregationalism, an understanding of the church in which congregations exist as autonomous and separate bodies. The emphasis in the Vision Statement upon being one Church laid the foundation for really seeing congregations differently – not as separate bodies, but as members together of one body. The statement of the identity of the annual conference affirmed the doctrine of the Church according to which the yearning for connection as a vital web of interactive relationships can flourish.
Blending Spirit and Structure
In Prayer and Devotion for United Methodists (Abingdon Press), Dr. Steve Harper observes that the genius of John Wesley was “blending spirit and structure.” After the adoption of the Vision Statement and Mission Statement the Conference Table adopted an agenda. One item on the agenda is evaluating the structure, staff and finances of the annual conference. The Cabinet began to address this item and proposed a new district structure, “Connecting For Transformation.” This proposal attempted to blend spirit and structure. At its heart was the plan to form clusters of all congregations. This new structure as a part of an overall proposal for new districts would respond to the spirit of yearning for experiencing connection as a vital web of interactive relationships.
We thought that the way to experience connection in a new way would occur by strengthening the horizontal connection among congregations and clergy. Congregations existed in a vertical connection to the rest of the Church through the office of the District Superintendent and by connectional giving, but they lacked a horizontal connection to one another.
In our thinking and talking there was a question that was not always clearly articulated but that, upon reflection, seemed to have guided us toward the concept of forming clusters: If the annual conference is one missionary Church, and if congregations are the missionary outposts of the one Church, then would there be a missional advantage if congregations had a relationship with one another? We answered “yes” for many reasons. Congregations in a geographical area (or with an affinity in mission) could be more effective as congregations if they helped one another and learned from one another how to fulfill their mission as congregations. There would be potential for congregations to better fulfill the mission of The United Methodist Church in their common area (of geography or of special ministry) if they came together and looked upon their area as a common mission field. Moreover, the concept of clusters fit our Methodist tradition. Originally the Methodist societies existed as members of circuits bound together in one connection or “connexion.” (We learned that other annual conferences such as Wisconsin actually named their clusters “circuits.”) Also, clusters could help us to become one Church of diverse people when congregations of ethnic people were joined with congregations of people of the majority population. So then, clusters seemed to us to be the primary way to build a horizontal connection as one Church of diverse people in a vital web of interactive relationships.
There was another factor that was involved in the formation of clusters – a spiritual understanding of how congregations and ministries can be in mission together. We Methodists are activists, strategists, and programmers. But not so fast! Mission is God’s work. God is in mission to the world by the Holy Spirit. God calls the Church to participate in God’s mission, but before we know what to do, we need to be like the apostles before Pentecost and wait on the Spirit. The Spirit is the one who illumines, empowers and guides us. The most important challenge of the cluster teams that lead the clusters is to discern the guidance of the Spirit, and to discover how to be before they do. This is easy for the Spirit. The Spirit binds us together as one body, and the Spirit foresees the opportunities that can come from congregations gathering up their strengths to be used for mission in their common mission field. It is not easy for us! We will have to learn how to come together to get to know one another, to know our congregations and our mission field, and to pray together before we jump into making plans. If we do not enter clusters with a spiritual approach, we are going to fail. If we do enter clusters with a spiritual approach as an intention to discern the guidance of the Spirit, we will be amazed at how the Spirit will use clusters to equip us for more effective mission. Before clusters can be a means to mission they must become a means of grace.
A New Way of Being Church
Clusters provide us with a new way of being church. We cannot experience this new way until we unlearn the old ways. The old ways were developed in the last century, and they are difficult to abandon because of conditioning and custom. In the 20th century the Church became bureaucratic rather than truly connectional. Following the cultural trends of forming corporations we thought of congregations as individual franchises with the district superintendent as the district manager. The ordained ministry was conceived as professional rather than as vocational. The clergy thought of their charge as the task of “running the church” to which they were assigned rather than as a calling to lead their charge in the context of a covenantal communion for which all elders together have some responsibility for oversight. These two habits helped create the competition among congregations and clergy that contributes to the decline in the effectiveness of the whole mission of the one Church. The Church became programmatic rather than spiritual in the development of its mission. And, the Church became oriented toward maintenance rather than mission. We have to unlearn the habits of being bureaucratic, professional, programmatic, and maintaining, and we need to learn how to be connectional, vocational, spiritual, and missional.
God has used the Wesleyan tradition to bless the ecumenical Christian community. There are many churches that use some of the Wesleyan innovations, such as small groups that are led by laity, to flourish in their mission. If other churches that are not Wesleyan in their doctrine, polity or heritage draw from the Wesleyan tradition, then how much more should we use our own tradition! By reclaiming our tradition of congregations being truly connected to one another in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit, God can lead us into a new way of being church on this side of the 20th century.
Timothy W. Whitaker
Resident Bishop, Florida Conference |
[+] Establishing Cluster Communities
[+] Clusters: A Retrospective |
