Rev. Luan-Vu Tran, Ph.D.
I. Purpose and Theological Foundation
The Local Church Potential Assessment Process in ¶ 213 is one of the most important but often underused tools in United Methodist polity. It is not merely an administrative review, a pre-closure checklist, or a diagnostic exercise for struggling congregations. Properly understood, it is a disciplined process of missional discernment: a structured way for a congregation, district superintendent, task force, cabinet, and annual conference resources to ask what faithful ministry should look like in a changing community.
Paragraph 213 sits within the section of the Book of Discipline 2020/2024 titled “Churches in Transitional Communities”. That placement is significant. Paragraph 212 begins from the recognition that many communities surrounding local churches are in transition and that the local church must respond to those changes by organizing its mission and ministry accordingly. The theological assumption is not that transition is abnormal, but that transition is the ordinary setting of local church ministry. The church is called not to preserve itself for its own sake, but to discern how it may continue to serve as a living expression of the gospel in the community where God has placed it.
That purpose is grounded in the broader definition and function of the local church. Paragraph 201 describes the local church as the most significant arena through which disciple-making occurs, and ¶ 202 defines the local church as a strategic base from which Christians move into the structures of society. Paragraph 204 adds that each local church has evangelistic, nurture, witness, and missional outreach responsibilities for its members, its surrounding area, and the local and global community. Thus, ¶ 213 should always be read alongside ¶¶ 201-204: the question is not simply whether the church can survive, but whether it can faithfully fulfill the mission for which a United Methodist local church exists.
II. When the ¶ 213 Process Begins
Paragraph 213 provides two basic ways the process may begin.
First, the congregation may request it. When the request comes from the congregation, the district superintendent “shall” appoint a study task force. This makes the process available as a proactive tool for healthy discernment. A congregation does not need to wait until crisis, decline, or closure is imminent. Churches can use ¶ 213 to evaluate ministry potential, assess community change, identify new mission fields, rethink facilities, consider cooperative ministry, or seek conference support for redevelopment.
Second, the district superintendent may initiate it when the future viability of the congregation is in question or whenever the superintendent deems it necessary for other reasons. This authority reflects the supervisory responsibility of the district superintendent, but it should be exercised pastorally, transparently, and with clear communication. A superintendent-initiated assessment should not be experienced as a predetermined closure process. It should be framed as a disciplined effort to discern the church’s past, present, and potential ministry.
The task force must be composed of an equal number of lay and clergy persons and must include persons from the congregation. That structure matters. The process is neither purely local nor purely connectional; it is both. Including congregational members protects local knowledge, memory, and voice. Including lay and clergy persons beyond the congregation helps widen perspective, bring connectional wisdom, and reduce the danger of self-protective or one-sided analysis.
III. What the Assessment Must Study
Paragraph 213.1 says the study must include, but is not limited to, eight areas. These are not casual talking points. They form the minimum disciplinary scope of the assessment.
The first area is the unique missional opportunities and needs of the community. This requires more than demographic data. It asks what God may be calling the church to see: new residents, language groups, economic changes, housing patterns, schools, senior communities, immigrant communities, unhoused neighbors, young families, isolated persons, and unmet spiritual or social needs. A ¶ 213 study should ask: Who lives here now? Who is not being reached? What pain, hope, injustice, or possibility is present in the neighborhood?
The second area is the present ministries of the congregation. This should include worship, discipleship, pastoral care, mission outreach, children’s ministry, youth ministry, small groups, digital ministry, community partnerships, hospitality, and lay leadership systems. The purpose is not simply to list programs, but to evaluate whether present ministries actually connect with the congregation’s mission field.
The third area is the number of leaders and style of leadership. A congregation may have members but too few functioning leaders. Or it may have willing leaders but no system for developing, deploying, and supporting them. This part of the study should examine whether leadership is collaborative, pastor-dependent, conflict-driven, permission-giving, resistant to change, or missionally adaptive.
The fourth area is the growth potential of the surrounding community. This should include population trends, housing development, age distribution, school enrollment, transportation patterns, employment centers, and cultural changes. Growth potential does not always mean numerical church growth; it may mean the potential for new forms of ministry, new partnerships, or a different model of Christian presence.
The fifth area is fiscal and facilities needs. This includes budget capacity, giving trends, apportionment patterns, deferred maintenance, insurance, accessibility, safety, parking, debt, endowments, restricted funds, and whether the facility supports or obstructs the mission. The question is not simply whether the church can afford its building, but whether the building serves the church’s mission.
The sixth area is the distance from other United Methodist churches. This is an explicitly connectional factor. A congregation’s future cannot be assessed in isolation from nearby United Methodist ministries. The analysis should consider whether cooperation, shared staffing, parish ministry, merger, relocation, redevelopment, or transfer of members to another United Methodist congregation may better serve the mission.
The seventh area is the number and size of churches of other denominations in the community. This asks the task force to consider the broader Christian ecology of the community. It may reveal opportunities for ecumenical cooperation, gaps in ministry, oversaturation of certain ministry forms, or a need for United Methodist witness in a particular theological, cultural, or social space.
The eighth area is a broad catch-all: other items that may impact the church’s ability to fulfill the mission of the Church as stated in Chapter One, Section I. This may include congregational conflict, unresolved trauma, reputation in the community, legal or property concerns, demographic mismatch, lack of pastoral continuity, governance dysfunction, language barriers, or new missional opportunities that do not fit neatly into the earlier categories.
IV. Findings, Recommendations, and Congregational Presentation
Paragraph 213.2 requires that the findings be published and presented to the congregation. This is a crucial procedural safeguard. The process should not produce a private report for district or conference leadership only. The congregation must receive the findings and recommendations so that it can understand the assessment, respond to it, and participate in discernment.
The recommendations must address how the local church can best fulfill its call to ministry and optimize the stewardship of available ministry resources. The Discipline specifically says the recommendations must explore options for serving the community through nurture, outreach, and witness ministries as an organized church under ¶¶ 201-204, through cooperative parish ministries under ¶ 206, or through ecumenical shared ministries under ¶ 207. The recommendations may also give special attention to redevelopment, relocation, or discontinuance.
That range of possible outcomes is important. Paragraph 213 is not a closure paragraph. It is a ministry-potential paragraph. Closure or discontinuance is only one possible outcome, and it should arise only after serious assessment of mission, resources, leadership, community needs, cooperative possibilities, and redevelopment options.
Those invited to the presentation must include the members of the congregation, the pastor or pastors, the district superintendent, and members of the District Board of Church Location and Building under ¶ 2519. Including the District Board of Church Location and Building is especially important where the recommendations involve property, relocation, redevelopment, discontinuance, merger, or future use of facilities.
V. Congregational Response and Ministry Action Plan
Paragraph 213.3(a) gives the congregation an active role after the recommendations are presented. The members of the local church are to consider the recommendations and develop goals and a ministry action plan in response. This means the congregation is not merely the object of study; it is a participant in discernment.
A good ministry action plan should identify the congregation’s mission field, name the ministry priorities that flow from the assessment, specify measurable goals, assign responsibility, establish a timeline, describe needed resources, and provide a process for evaluation. If redevelopment is recommended, the plan should say what redevelopment means in concrete terms: worship renewal, leadership development, community partnerships, new staffing models, facility repurposing, multicultural ministry, digital ministry, or other strategic changes.
The district superintendent then reports the results of the study and the congregation’s response to the cabinet, together with recommendations for conference staff, resourcing, financial support, or other resources needed to undergird the congregation’s efforts. Paragraph 213 limits such annual conference support to no longer than three years. That time limit encourages seriousness, accountability, and measurable progress. It also guards against indefinite subsidy without missional clarity.
VI. Special Session for Action on Ministry Recommendations
Paragraph 213.3(b) provides that, for any church that has gone through this process, the district superintendent may convene a special session of the conference to take action concerning the ministry recommendations. The paragraph then specifies that, in addition to the local church charge conference membership, members of the District Board of Church Location and Building are present with voice only.
This provision should be used carefully. It gives a way to move from study to formal action when recommendations require more than informal congregational conversation. Depending on the recommendation, such action may relate to redevelopment, relocation, cooperative parish arrangements, ecumenical shared ministry, property strategy, or discontinuance. Because charge conference authority is central to United Methodist local church governance, any formal action should be clearly grounded in the proper disciplinary body and procedure.
VII. Relationship to Closure Under ¶ 2549
The ¶ 213 process becomes legally critical when a district superintendent is considering a recommendation to close a local church under ¶ 2549. Under ¶ 2549.2(a)(1), before recommending closure, the district superintendent must guide the congregation in an assessment of its potential as outlined in ¶ 213, in consultation with the appropriate agency assigned responsibility for conference parish and community development strategy.
This means that in an ordinary closure process, ¶ 213 is not optional background work. It is a required pre-closure assessment step. Its purpose is to ensure that closure is not recommended without first assessing whether the congregation has viable missional potential, whether redevelopment or relocation is possible, whether cooperative or ecumenical options exist, and whether the community’s needs can still be served through that congregation or another United Methodist strategy.
Judicial Council Decision 1517 is the most direct Judicial Council authority connecting ¶ 213 to closure procedure. In that case, the Judicial Council reviewed a purported closure of Embrace UMC and held that the process did not satisfy ¶ 2549. The bishop had acknowledged an “outlier” in the process: the requirement of ¶ 2549.2(a)(1) to guide the congregation in an assessment of its potential under ¶ 213. The Judicial Council held that this “crucial first requirement was not met,” rendering the closure process deficient.
Decision 1517 also confirms that ¶ 2549 cannot be used as a pretext for allowing a church to leave the denomination with property. The Judicial Council reversed the bishop’s ruling because the closure resolution functioned as an improper separation from The United Methodist Church rather than a true closure under ¶ 2549.
Decision 1512 provides the broader controlling principle: ¶ 2549 applies to church closure and sale of property, not disaffiliation, and cannot be used as a “gracious exit” mechanism after the expiration and deletion of ¶ 2553. The Judicial Council stated that no body other than the General Conference may reinstate or replicate ¶ 2553 or adopt policies authorizing local church departure from the denomination.
Decision 1507 is also important because two 2024 General Conference changes relating to church council-initiated closure were later declared unconstitutional. UMC’s own Ask The UMC summary notes that the changes appear in the printed 2020/2024 Discipline but were voided after the book had gone to press, and JCD 1507 held that the changes denied and circumvented the authority of the charge conference.
VIII. Best Practices for a ¶ 213 Assessment
A faithful ¶ 213 process should begin with a written charge from the district superintendent. The charge should explain why the process is being initiated, name the task force members, state the expected timeline, identify the information to be gathered, and make clear that the purpose is discernment of ministry potential. If closure is a possible outcome, that should be acknowledged honestly, but it should not be treated as predetermined.
The task force should gather both quantitative and qualitative information. Quantitative data may include worship attendance, membership trends, professions of faith, baptisms, giving, budget history, apportionments, facility costs, insurance costs, demographic trends, and community growth projections. Qualitative data should include listening sessions with members, interviews with community leaders, conversations with nearby churches, review of the congregation’s history, and assessment of community reputation.
The process should include prayerful congregational engagement. Because ¶ 213 is about ministry potential, it should not be reduced to a consultant’s report. Worship, prayer, Bible study, holy conferencing, and theological reflection should be part of the process. The congregation should be helped to ask not only “Can we continue?” but “What is God calling us to become for the sake of this community?”
The report should be candid but pastoral. It should name strengths, opportunities, constraints, risks, and possible pathways. It should distinguish facts from interpretations, and interpretations from recommendations. It should avoid inflammatory language, blame, or nostalgia. It should also avoid unrealistic optimism. A report that is too harsh will not be received; a report that is too vague will not help.
The recommendations should be specific enough to support action. A weak report says, “The church should grow.” A stronger report says, “The church should redevelop around a bilingual community ministry model, establish three community partnerships, reconfigure Sunday worship and weekday space use, recruit and train ten new lay leaders, and receive conference coaching for twenty-four months.” The more specific the recommendations, the more likely the congregation and cabinet can respond responsibly.
IX. Common Mistakes to Avoid
The first mistake is treating ¶ 213 as a closure formality. Decision 1517 makes clear that the assessment requirement cannot be casually bypassed when ¶ 2549 closure is at issue. A genuine assessment must occur before a closure recommendation, not after the outcome has already been effectively decided.
The second mistake is excluding the congregation. Paragraph 213 requires that the task force include persons from the congregation and that findings be published and presented to the congregation. A process done “about” the church but not “with” the church undermines both the letter and spirit of ¶ 213.
The third mistake is failing to evaluate the community. The process is not merely an internal church health review. It is a study of the relationship between congregation and community. A church may be small and still have vital potential. Conversely, a church may have assets and history but little meaningful connection to its surrounding mission field.
The fourth mistake is ignoring connectional alternatives. Paragraph 213 specifically names organized church ministry, cooperative parish ministries, and ecumenical shared ministries, along with redevelopment, relocation, and discontinuance. A valid assessment should explore these options before narrowing the path.
The fifth mistake is relying on outdated closure provisions without accounting for Judicial Council rulings. The printed 2020/2024 Discipline includes provisions affected by JCD 1507, and any closure-related use of ¶ 213 should be reviewed in light of that decision and subsequent Judicial Council authority.
X. Suggested Timeline
A practical ¶ 213 process may unfold over approximately four to six months, though the timeline may vary depending on urgency, complexity, and conference practice.
During the first month, the district superintendent issues the written charge, appoints the task force, gathers preliminary data, and schedules listening sessions.
During the second and third months, the task force conducts interviews, reviews congregational and community data, studies fiscal and facilities realities, and evaluates leadership capacity.
During the fourth month, the task force drafts findings and recommendations.
During the fifth month, the findings are published and presented to the congregation, pastor, district superintendent, and District Board of Church Location and Building representatives.
During the sixth month, the congregation develops goals and a ministry action plan, and the district superintendent reports the study and congregational response to the cabinet with recommendations for resourcing.
Where closure, relocation, redevelopment, merger, or property action is possible, additional time should be allowed for legal review, District Board of Church Location and Building involvement, conference trustees, charge conference action, and annual conference action where required.
XI. Conclusion
Paragraph 213 is one of the Discipline’s most constructive tools for congregational discernment. It assumes that every church exists in a changing community and that faithful ministry requires honest assessment, courageous adaptation, and connectional support. At its best, the process helps a congregation rediscover its mission field, renew its leadership, steward its property and finances, and align its ministry with the needs of the community.
When used in connection with possible closure, ¶ 213 also functions as a legal and pastoral safeguard. It prevents closure from becoming merely administrative, financial, or pretextual. It requires the church and conference to ask first whether there remains a faithful path for ministry. Judicial Council Decision 1517 confirms that this requirement matters. Decision 1512 confirms that closure cannot be misused as disaffiliation. Decision 1507 confirms that charge conference authority cannot be bypassed.
The Local Church Potential Assessment Process is therefore not a sign of failure. It is a disciplined act of hope. It invites the church to tell the truth about its present condition, listen deeply to its community, steward its resources faithfully, and discern whether God is calling it to renewal, cooperation, relocation, redevelopment, or holy completion.
In every case, the controlling question is missional: how can this congregation, its resources, and its people best serve the making of disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world?