<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Some telling statistics from the UUA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://boyinthebands.com/archives/some-telling-statistics-from-the-uua/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/some-telling-statistics-from-the-uua/</link>
	<description>Scott Wells on the practice of Christian faith</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 07:28:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Derek</title>
		<link>http://boyinthebands.com/archives/some-telling-statistics-from-the-uua/#comment-82</link>
		<dc:creator>Derek</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.universalistchurch.net/boyinthebands/archives/some-telling-statistics-from-the-uua/#comment-82</guid>
		<description>- The statistics are fascinating, and confirm what I've often heard about in passing.  We are largely a denomination of small churches.  And so I can appreciate the desire to expand our diversity at the upper end of the membership spectrum.  But what I don't understand is the ability to ignore our small church productivity.  We have an excellent track record for bringing in new people, and expanding into new areas, through small membershipc ongregations (see John Morgan's research about the old fellowship movement).  They are the "weedy opportunists" of the church ecosystem.  In my ideal universe, we would be working at both ends.

And maybe we will.  My district now has 3 emerging congregations (Petoskey, MI; Warsaw, IN; and Murray, KY).  And while some of these have greater potential than others, and some of them have fallen into the old traps of the fellowship movement, I will admit that they are breaking new ground in areas where we haven't had any churches in the 20th century.
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<ul>
<li>The statistics are fascinating, and confirm what I&#8217;ve often heard about in passing.  We are largely a denomination of small churches.  And so I can appreciate the desire to expand our diversity at the upper end of the membership spectrum.  But what I don&#8217;t understand is the ability to ignore our small church productivity.  We have an excellent track record for bringing in new people, and expanding into new areas, through small membershipc ongregations (see John Morgan&#8217;s research about the old fellowship movement).  They are the &#8220;weedy opportunists&#8221; of the church ecosystem.  In my ideal universe, we would be working at both ends.</li>
</ul>
<p>And maybe we will.  My district now has 3 emerging congregations (Petoskey, MI; Warsaw, IN; and Murray, KY).  And while some of these have greater potential than others, and some of them have fallen into the old traps of the fellowship movement, I will admit that they are breaking new ground in areas where we haven&#8217;t had any churches in the 20th century.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
