On Twitter, C Wess Daniels (@cwdaniels) asks if this article on the future of Evangelicalism in North America by David Fitch applies to Quakers. Fitch writes:
The future of the traditional evangelical church as I see it is: a.) mega churches continuing to grow, consolidating what is left of the Christendom populations…; b.) smaller churches of under 200 slowly dying and eventually closing, and c.) the birthing of new missional communities through either seeding new missionary communities or transitioning (the aforementioned) dying small churches into vibrant places of mission.
On the face of it, it’s bizarre to compare liberal Friends to mainstream Christian evangelicals, but there are similarities if you scale back the numbers. I think some larger Friends meetings have mega-church-like dynamics. They have strong family programs and connections to nearby Friends schools and/or retirement communities. They serve as the local progressive liberal hub of their communities. They’re not deeply rooted in Quaker spirituality and are proud of the spiritual heterodoxy. They’re very organized – name tags, “Friendly 8” dinners, experienced clerks. They stand in contrast to the bulk of smaller meetings that are dying fast and won’t be around another generation.
Fitch clearly thinks the interesting work falls under the last category, “missional communities” and argues that a “significant part” of church resources should be devoted to “efforts in training missionary pastors.” His big question is whether the small “b” churches can evolve into the “c” missional communities.
I’m not sure that we really need training programs but for argument’s sake let’s say Fitch is right. Liberal Friends don’t have anyone to devote church resources to training (the closest analogue be the Earlham School of Religion). We do have small missional communities springing up but so far there’s been little support or recognition from local meetings or larger Friends bodies. What would it look like to equip these efforts in an unprogrammed Quaker setting? Is it all but inevitable that they’ll have to rely on self-organized associations? Will they remain as worship groups? Is that fine?
Unless the Quarterly, Half-Yearly or Yearly Meeting become intentional about such support, there may be a few more Buddhists around, and a lot more unchurched folks. Many Friends from smaller meetings will join with Unitarians or Mennonites. For 30 years or more, one of my sorrows about Philadelphia Yearly Meeting has been the lack of attention to smaller meetings, and many are of the opinion that smaller meetings should simply be laid down. Were that true in Canada, most Friends would probably be UCC, and in the intermountain west, most would be Unitarian. Been there. I have a passion for smaller meetings. It may take a few of us being intentional in our support.
You wrote: “I think some larger Friends meetings have mega-church-like dynamics.” This is an uncannily accurate description of San Francisco Meeting! We have super-organized name tags, as of six months ago (a mini-saga unto itself). I do believe we are deeply rooted in our Quaker spirituality AND quite heterodox at the same time.
@Chris: that’s cool. My experience is mostly Philadelphia area meetings, of course. San Francisco meeting feels less isolated and more engaged with the diversity of Friends than its “mega-meeting” counterparts in Philadelphia YM. I can think of half a dozen reasons why but they’d all be speculation.
Here’s a question: do you see any kind of “missional” Friends work happening there? If so, is it happening under the umbrella of SFMM, either formally or informally?
Mega-Meetings? Can you name any unprogrammed Friends Meeting with over 500 members?