“People are more likely to join a new mission rather than an old denomination.”–>So what? Why are we always so quick to be pragmatic? I could say that crackheads are more likely to join a church that hands out free drug money but that doesn’t make it right or good. New isn’t necessarily better or old necessarily worse…and vice-versa. I’m truly not trying to throw stones, just want us to consider our source of power–Jesus, not human plans or strategies. Btw, I totally agree with you when you say that you ‘don’t think advertisements that promote a denomination are the best plan’. We should only be promoting Jesus Christ. Soli Deo Gloria

The RethinkChurch campaign seemed to me more like a high-level PR campaign, aimed at changing the image of the UMC as being more “in tune” with current spiritual winds; even if it had succeeded at a denominational level, it does not seem to have had the intended effect on its own constituents. While there are some local UMC churches that are the exceptions, the majority of the local UMC churches continue to drink the well waters of status quo. I believe the $20 million would have had a far greater impact for the Kingdom of God if it had been used in retooling the local UMC churches in the lost art of making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded us. That’s the “organic advertising” of the first century church.

What amazes me is that there is plenty of research that shows that advertising is an ineffective means of reaching people for Christ. (With one giant flushing sound, $20,000,000 was wasted.)
Most people become involved in churches, as you point out, because they want to be a part of a cause or a movement. I would revise this to say, that they want to be involved where there is life. And the life that is most effective at attracting people to the church is this: personal relationships made by mission minded members are the key to attracting people into church life. Mission minded members are those who extend hospitality/fellowship beyond their church doors on Sunday mornings. They don’t just invite people to come to the next potluck or special program. Rather than inviting people to come to church, they take the church to the people. They are the Church to the people. I would call this personal outreach, i.e. each of us serving as the ministers God has called us all to be. The old philosophy of “You build it and they will come,” no longer works. People are most attracted to our mission when the we—the People of God—are engaged in life beyond their walls and in a way that says to them that we care and want to serve you in love and grace.
However, I don’t fully agree with your generalized observation that “Starting new churches is easier than revitalizing old churches.” This may be true in metropolitan churches. In the UMC the life blood continues to be the rural, small membership churches. Unlike metro-churches, smaller churches, which often cannot afford to pay full-time pastors, more faithfully pay their apportionments. I believe this is reflective of a deep commitment among rural people to their churches, communities and their way of life.
The biggest problems confronting rural churches are aging populations, the declining ratio of children to adults (i.e. we are not having enough children to replace our population in US and western societies), and the lack of jobs. However, many urbanites and retirees are moving to rural areas in search of a quieter and less hectic way of life. Therefore, the UMC should focus its financial resources to helping the rural churches learn how to reach out to those who move into their communities and to cope with other demographic issues I mentioned. That is, $20,000,000 could be used to field mission minded full-time pastors into these areas—and not just the urban-minded ordained but those who have a heart for rural communities and the rural way of life—those who want to be a part of the land and the culture they serve. The leadership of the UMC needs to recognize that their own backyard is their mission field. If they don’t work to revitalize the rural churches, they’re essentially cutting off the hands that feed them, and the UMC will soon die on the vine.
Jesus did not call us to go into world to build nice, comfy, expensive, debt laden church buildings. He didn’t call us to go into the world and become political activists for left or right wing causes. He did not call us to get involved in causes that promotes policies that get the government to do what we’ve been called to do. He called US—the CHURCH—to make disciples and to feed his lambs—spiritually and physically. The fact that those who made the decision to waste $20,000,000 on advertising is proof of just how out of touch with reality many of our Bishops and other church leaders are. We talk a lot about social justice in the UMC, as well we should. But not one of those 20,000,000 dollars wasted to advertise the Church has fed one lamb.

That said, I’m willing to defend the Rethink Church initiative. Yes, it cost a lot of money. If there’s one thing I’m proud of as a United Methodist, however, it’s the amount of financial resources the denomination puts into worldwide missions, relief work, AND evangelism. In fact, I think the denomination’s worldwide missional focus certainly represents a “cause” that represents a bridge to faith for many.

Moreover, the Rethink campaign was designed as much to help the churches of the denomination rally around a common purpose as it was about providing television commercials for the unchurched American population. Adam Hamilton for the United Methodist Church of the Resurrection preached a terrific sermon series focused on the principals from the Rethink campaign. If more United Methodist Church leaders and parishioners “caught the vision,” we’d consider this $20 million money well spent.

Specially in Latin churches-denominations.

Learning alot!