[Church-planters] Satellite churches

[Patrick McLaughlin]

It's a model being pursued--or experimented with--in San Diego (First 
Church has a satellite now in the southern part of the county, where 
there's been no organized UU presence), and in Albuquerque (I'm less 
familiar with its details, though I think it's been running longer).

There's truth to the notion that large churches tend to unwittingly 
devour--or mine, or whatever term you will--nearby congregations.

There are key programs that people want, and unless a church is far 
enough away--or manages to make things happen somehow, anyway--there's a 
steady rate of loss to the larger, busier church.

There are a variety of observations...

The first is that this is an unforeseen, unintended consequence of the 
extremely mobile culture of the late 20th century.  UU growth was very 
much a dispersed, small, new congregation thing in the 50s and 60s (the 
fellowship movement accounts for about 30% of extant congregations).  
As/if/when mobility changes, this will change.  People who opt to drive 
the *extra* 30 minutes were feeling the effect of $4/gal gas. I know 
this because our barely mid-size congregation draws some people from 45 
minutes or so away, and we heard about the distress and expense... and 
even so, they're still with us rather than a small start-up that's closer.

Church planting of the sort that's described is a worthy experiment, and 
one that might work. 

If the objective is to enhance the vibrancy of congregations outside the 
large (usually urban and near-urban) churches, to make them 
"competitive," satellites are one way to create new ones--and to do so 
at a cost that's more reasonable than the let's plant big churches 
programs of the past decade, decades, century... that fall so far short 
of expectations that they have to be acknowledged as failures, too 
expensive to turn into a program.

But it points to something else.  If the mission of the UUA and our 
large churches is to help ensure that there are other vibrant 
congregations in the region, it might behoove them to find ways to help 
make the critical needs and programs that make the large church 
attractive available at existing smaller congregations--as well as new 
satellites in areas that aren't served at all.

In our region, for example, Jr. High/Sr High OWL is really a need. We've 
had a handful of people who are willing to make the long commute to get 
their kids to the large church offering it.  But for many families, 
that's not viable, and so many kids who ought to get OWL (and otherwise 
would) don't. 

Taking the idea of the satellite's distribution of services and 
programs, of sharing some time, energy, money and staff--and pushing 
that out to existing smaller congregations--would help make them more 
vibrant, more attractive, local growth centers, rather than places where 
congregations survive... at about the same size... struggling.

Come the day when gas is well over $4, those congregations, and the 
satellites, are going to be places that people will need--because the 
large church is too far away in terms of time and money.

In this sense, planting gets coupled with "tending"--smaller 
congregations (new or not) are likely to benefit from relatively modest 
resources added to them.  In one sense it may not be as "efficient"--but 
it may turn out to be more effective.

Patrick McLaughlin

David R Throop wrote:
> Last night, I attended a dinner where the Revs Peter Morales and Laurel Hallman (candidates for President of the UUA) debated.
>
> Rev Morales discussed UU growth.  He described a plan of large churches planting satellite churches.  Typically, an established church of 600+ members opens a satellite campus at another location.  E.g. a big downtown church opens a suburban campus.  The members at the satellite are full members of the mother church.  The Sunday worship is video-streamed to the satellite.  The events at the satellite are listed in the common newsletter.  A junior pastor has office hours (Sundays & during the week) at the satellite.  RE programs are available at the satellite, but the trainings etc are done at the mother church.
>
> Later, in the hallway, I talked some with Morales.  He said such a satellite takes less than half a full-time position, but can offer the full-featured experience of a large church.  He also commented that, in a metro-plex, large churches eat small ones, without meaning to.  People attend a 50-member suburban church, join and stay for a while.  Then they visit the larger church.  They experience the difference between an RE program with 8 kids and one with 100 kids.  They try out all the offerings at the larger church.  And they decide its worth driving the extra 30 minutes for the better quality.  The small church stays small, even tho it is doing a good job for a church its size.
>
> I'm really intrigued by this.  I look around Houston, where we probably have at least 3 areas where the demographics say we ought to be able to support another UU church.  But I also look around the (extended) area and see four small struggling congregations.  Each of these, at various times past, have had spells of part-time ministry.  All four are currently entirely lay led because of declining finances.  Why add another precarious, struggling congregation to the area?  The satellite model looks like an alternative.
>
> Thoughts?
> David Throop
>
> _______________________________________________
> Church-planters mailing list
> Church-planters at unitarianuniversalist.org
> http://unitarianuniversalist.org/mailman/listinfo/church-planters_unitarianuniversalist.org
>
>