Is Church Death a Part of Church Life?
We had one of those “teachable life-lesson moments” at our home around this time last year. Our beloved cat, Lizzie, passed away quietly on the sofa in my study around 6:00 AM one cold autumn morning. Over the years, Lizzie had become, almost exclusively, my daughter Laura Beth’s cat. Laura Beth had a very strong connection with Lizzie. They spent a lot of time together. Lizzie slept with Laura Beth every night.Laura Beth was with Lizzie in that moment when she drew her final breath. It was heartbreaking, and there were many tears. But a little while later, after we buried Lizzie under the shade of the pines in our yard, I got a chance to talk to Laura Beth alone. I shared with her a simple reality. The older you become, the more that death becomes a more common … even an expected … part of life. Sometimes it is even welcomed.
Might this attitude toward death be applicable in church life, as well?
I found an interesting article written by Frank Walton of the Northside Church of Christ in Tucson, Arizona, entitled “The Life-Cycle of a Church.” In that article, he proposes that there are three stages in the life of the church. They are:
- The Risk-Taker Stage – A stage of zealous ministry and growth.
- The Caretaker Stage – A time of comfort zone and “status quo.”
- The Undertaker Stage – A time of “living in the past” and, ultimately, death.
Insightful stuff. I do, indeed, think we need to help our pastors, church members, and even our denominational leaders, understand that death is a natural part of life, even in the life of a local church. I don’t know the exact statistics, but the last time I looked, we were closing the doors on some 3,000+ churches a year in the United States. Local churches are, indeed, dying. While on a mission trip in Port Arthur, Texas, last summer, we drove by one dead, empty church building after another. The stories were all so incredibly sad. In many cases, the financially bankrupt congregations simply walked away and abandoned their facilities.
Based upon the yearly baptism and growth figures in the SBC, I would venture to guess that a huge number of our churches are in Walton’s “Caretaker” and “Undertaker” stages. We often talk about how the majority of our churches are “plateaued.” I think that’s being a bit on the optimistic, generous side (if one pays attention to the ACP reports). As the Gen-Xers and Postmoderns remain largely unreached in North America, I’m guessing that we are about 10-15 years of funerals away from a drastic demonstration of church closures in the Southern Baptist Convention. That incredible generation that has been the backbone and the financial foundation of the SBC will soon be going to be with the Lord in greater and greater numbers. Southern Baptists must plan. We simply cannot afford to live in the past.
Something must change … very dramatically … within the next few years.
So, what’s the answer? Frankly, I don’t know. But I do think we need more “Risk-Takers.” We need more new churches that intentionally attempt to reach the unreached and fringe groups within our culture. We use that methodology overseas, so why are we so reluctant to use a “people group” approach in our own society? There seems to be an overwhelming aversion to ideas such as “target groups” or “niche churches.” But I believe that aversion is more based upon how we think things “ought to be” rather than upon how our culture really is. It is fragmented and divided. Our culture is full of a huge diversity of “people groups” and sub-cultures. We must do something to reach them where they are, rather than try to convince them to desire and long for (as we do) a generationally homogenous church.
We must develop this “missional” mindset that all of the “hot” new books are talking about.
We need a strategic, concerted effort to rejuvenate our vast army of plateaued churches and urge them back toward the world of risk … the task of engaging the 21st century culture (not the 1950’s culture) with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
And I believe we need to find ways to partner existing churches and their facilities with church planters for the purpose of starting new congregations. Evangelical Presbyterian blogger (and, I thoroughly believe, Great Commission Christian) Rob Mitchell of Memphis, Tennessee, recently wrote about this on his blog, The Naked Church, in an article entitled “Embracing Congregational Death to Plant New Churches.”
Rob wrote two particularly insightful, thought-provoking, and (for us Southern Baptists), biting paragraphs. Consider his insights:
“There are thousands of moribund churches across America where a few dozen septuagenarians gather each Sunday morning and reminisce, treasuring memories of what it used to be like and wishing the clock could be turned back. The facilities may be maintained if there is money saved, but in some the incoming offerings cannot cover the expenses of maintaining a facility that once was home to a far larger congregation, and the signs of slow decay are everywhere. These churches are like museums. No one updates the bulletin boards any more, and walking through the old church everywhere you can see old pictures left over from when there was some life and vibrancy left. Now the church is on life support. An influx of cash from a bequest or sale of part of the facility may give the appearance of life for a little while, but the reality is something other, like the macabre 1989 comedy “Weekend at Bernie’s”, where living people hang out and party with a dead body (the dead character Bernie Lomax), propping up the corpse and pretending it’s alive so they can continue to have fun.”
How true is that? We all know it is! How many of our Southern Baptist churches are on “life support,” sitting on a wealth of decaying real estate, waiting for the last surviving member to “turn out the lights” before they leave? What would be a true “kingdom response” to the reality of dying churches? Here’s what Rob suggests …
“There are hundreds of heritage congregations … who have unused facilities in prestigious locations. The facilities may not be useful for churches any more, but the sale of these facilities could easily support many new church plants. Most church plants struggle through their first years of existence. If a fund the size of the sale price of Eudora’s old facility (a declining church’s building sold for $1.3 million in Memphis) were to be devoted to church planting, how many new churches could be kick-started? Fourteen churches with a startup fund of a quarter million each? Now THAT would be kingdom thinking.
More than three thousand churches close each year in America. A majority have facilities to be disposed of. What better end could come for these churches than to fund a new wave of church planting? Sure, it’s an impossible notion. But with Christ, all things are possible. Who knows but that the Holy Spirit can even speak to older Christians in moribund congregations?”
So, what do you think? Does Kingdom thinking compel us to continue the consumption of Gospel resources within dead and dying churches (I know that sounds harsh, but is it not true?) … or does true a Kingdom economy say that we should embrace congregational death for the sake of TRUE church life?
Hopefully, we won’t have to see many more signs like the one in the picture. What do you think? Is church death sometimes a part of church life?
I’ll be “out of pocket” today as I am spending my “day off” working a construction site with a friend from church. I will be back in the office and ready to jump into the conversation this afternoon (late). Feel free to disagree or agree with me. (Some may even want to skewer and roast me on this one.)
;)
Geoff,
Good post. Yes, it would be good to sell some buildings and start some church planting endowments, which is happening in some places. With that price of $1.3 million, you could endow a Church Planting Fund that only spent the interest on that money, giving you (at 6% annual interest) $78,000 a year for church planting. As an associational church planting strategist, I cannot begin to tell you what a tremendous difference that would make in 10-15 churches a year. For some of our church planters, that would mean health insurance, for some it would mean not working a second job, for others it would mean their wife could work alongside them in the plant instead of supporting her husband financially.
I pray that older, dying churches would let go of their pride and release their few remaining people and ample resources for the sake of the kingdom. We have one church with 7 people attending which has 30,000 square feet of building space including a gym, and 22 acres of land which adds up to about $3 million in assets. And they turned us down on letting an African-american church plant meet in their gym.
Oh, Lord, soften the hearts of these your servants, that they would release their grip on the past and grab hold of the new things you are doing!
Roger,
Good insights. Unfortunately, the situation that you describe happens far too often.
Just imagine the work that could be accomplished with all of the capital property that is “bound up” in similar situations.
A philosophical/doctrinal thought to your post….
“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.” Matthew 16:13-20 ESV
The key verse in discussion is verse 18: “… upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell(hades) shall not prevail against it.” IF the only notations of “church” in the New Testament are “Local” then how can the “establishment” folks explain the discrepancy between churches dieing, and “hell shall not prevail against it.” It just seems to me that the term “church” here is symbolizing that which represents the church “of all time” and not a specific church since Jesus would not contradict Himself.
Rob
Rob,
I most definitely don’t want to open that can of worms. ;)
But I think you are right …
Oh Geoff, dear heart…you are so concerned with our dear and departing. Please don’t bury them too soon. Should the wisdom of the aged be as respected and enjoined with as much enthusiasm as the energy, vitality and ingenuity of the young X’ers and postmoderns, the two could live quite nicely together. Even those who are X, Y or Z will someday find their ideas and ways a thing of yesterday to the up-and-coming alphabetic wave of their decendants.
The enthusiasm with which you write and the ideas from which you possess to create a new are just the catalyst needed to connect dots and bridge gaps in churches. I dare say it is not the aged ways of the past that are causing death to our churches as much as the death of the spirit within the body. We’ve been beating up the old-folks and their methods for longer than I’ve been in the ministry. New life comes when new Life comes.
And that begins on our knees. I wonder what would happen in all these churches if we all who think they need a funeral service would bow down and pray as many words of intercession as we seem to want to eulogize?
“The hand of the Lord was upon me, and He brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry, He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” I said, “O Sovereign Lord, you alone know.”
Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you and you will come to life. Then you will know that I AM the Lord.”
Methods are not our problem, in my feminine prophetic opinionated mind, the prayerlessness of God’s people is the problem. Oh we of little faith. Oh we who sit in condemnation and contemplate our ways–if only we could see dry bones live and “Then you will know that I Am the Lord.” selahV
SelahV,
I can’t figure out if you just agreed with me, or if you got after me. :)
Obviously, I have not written down these thoughts in order to hasten or desire the demise of any generation or any church.
As Southern Baptists we tend to wish for a return to the days gone by. We talk often about the “way things ought to be.” We desire thriving, growing, Spirit-filled, multi-generational churches.
But then there’s reality … the multitudes of churches that are maintained by a remnant of senior adults. They exist. The example Roger cited is a pitiful, poor example of a lack of kingdom vision. I can barely fathom the notion that a tiny group with such resources would not even rent a part of their facility for planting a new church. I am almost speechless.
I am simply considering the facts … and casting a vision based upon those facts … we close the doors on 3,000+ churches a year in the United States. As the builders and bridgers grow older, that rate will undoubtedly increase.
I am not attacking anyone’s methods. I am merely observing the way things are, not the way we wish they could be. Last summer I stood in the huge sanctuary of an abandoned church in Port Arthur, Texas, and all I could think was, “What a waste!”
We need, in Southern Baptist life, a vision past the “glory days” of the 1950′s … and keep our eyes on that day of glory when Jesus will come to claim His bride.
Indeed, we need prayer. But we also need to take action. That’s my humble opinion. :)
Selah,
AMEN.
Rob
Selah, my thoughts exactly.
Years ago, my husband, pre-seminary, pre-full-time pastorate, was called to go to a dying church to “help it out.” The first Sunday night, he preached to six faithful members in attendance. Within a year, there were around 200 in attendance and this was a very rural area. Giving up should not be an option.
God has plans for us and his ways are better than our ways. I think there may be too much thinking and writing books and not enough praying and sharing the Gospel.
Liz,
Your experience was important, and encouraging. Unfortunately, it is more often the exception than the rule in church life today.
I still must remind everyone of the 3,000 number. And that’s an “old” number. Who knows what it may be this year.
The idea of a church life cycle is not new to those of us who do interim ministry. A big part of assessing how best to help a congregation involves looking at where they are in the cycle.
Two thoughts: First, it really can be a cycle with one congregation effectively dying out and a new one bringing a fresh vision in the same building. We don’t have to sell the property and give the resources toward church planting. Some churches really can be “comeback churches”.
My second thought involves those congregations that don’t come back. In Tulsa you can almost plot the demise of congregations and the new starts as they follow the money from the northwest to the southeast. We’re losing churches in the poorer, more culturally diverse parts of the county and starting new ones in the white, middleclass neighborhoods.
Well, Liz, I love the thinkers and the writers (I being one) but I do think (opps, I’m one of them, too :) ), that what we focus on is what we become. And my husband’s first church, second church, third church and final church, all had problems with dry bones. He just kept preaching Jesus, we kept loving them and soon Jesus poured out His spirit and grew those churches. Two were rural, one was a mission church and the last a inner-city. The evening services were down to nearly no one coming and they grew to about 1/3 the size of the morning and continue to grow as I understand today.
From them we had many of the boomers, busters and xers go on to become preachers, leaders and teachers. Cooperative giving increased. hearts for hands-on missions grew and God still finds His children faithful in the homogenous atmosphere of old coggers giving to youth programs and youth activities.
I do not discount that many churches are dying for lack of life, but it is the Spirit that is in need of stirring up, the methods are simply not the problem in my way of thinking when the spirit is willing the mind will follow and new ideas will be welcomed rather than tossed aside.
I am also for more new church starts and I don’t care if they are targeted at doglovers and catlovers as long as they seek to make them Jesus lovers. The Lord will bring in who He chooses to bring in and our best laid plans will soon be made known to be His. Wherever God’s people are, in lifeless old buildings, or YMCA’s, He will abide where two or more are gathered in His name.
We are starting a new church just a few miles from us in a stripmall area with a handful of people. Guess who they are calling on to do the surveys, the door-to-door prayerwalks around the neighborhoods? Our old-folks department. hee hee. 55 and to the grave. Ha, know why? we’re the dependable ones. we have a vision for the energy and enthusiam of the younger generation and we want our Lord to go forward to tomorrow. Today’s culture is on today’s churches for today’s needs. Old men dream dreams and remember the past and pray for tomorrow. That’s the way this old fifty-niner sees stuff. Hellow Geoff. selahV
Hey Bowden, I must have posted over you. I find that the neighborhood growth is key to churches moving. In the old days (dare I refer to that time) churches wouldn’t have dared to uproot and change locations. Today they change because their areas become the less affluent and so the people move out and away from the innercity areas. We had a church like that in Owensboro. Our church decided to stay and minister to the area. Oddly, the area didn’t come to us for anything but the social programs we offered.
It would behoove us to consider ministering to the needs of those moving into the neighborhoods while we move out to greener pastures don’t you think? Great place for church planting…and targeting that new group of folk. selahV
SelahV,
My home church is faced with a similar decision. The majority of our members (myself included) live in a suburb about 5 to 7 miles away. We could move the church to the burbs and focus on reaching people that look like us. Nothing wrong with that; plenty of white, 40-somethings out there that are lost and need Christ.
Or, we could stay in the community and be intentional about reaching the (largely) Hispanic, younger community around us.
Or we could do both: move but leave the property – and people and other resources – to a mission church and let each congregation target their respective neighborhoods.
Bowden: well I guess you know what I’d vote for. do both! each would bless the other and fuel the mother church to tend to the mission church. love it! let’s all spread the Word! selahV
Friends,
I am in a comeback church (re-plant) myself, so maybe I should clarify my desire to see churches die and new churches take their place. Our church intentionally started over with a focus on reaching the lost – new name, new ways of doing things, new leadership. It is stagnant, not dying, churches that are the real tragedy. Yes, it would be great if some of those started over, but it would also be wonderful if a white, downtown church with a building that seats 900 looked around at their area and did whatever it took to reach it, even if it meant handing the building to a Hispanic planter. So I think I can speak for Geoff and say we are praying for those churches to turn around, and its not an age thing, but the methods will have to change. Prayer leads to a change in behavior, and whether that is giving up the building to an ethnic congregation, assimilating a few remaining folks into another nearby church and selling the facility for missions, or starting over with a vibrant outreach; all are good.
What is not good is stagnation, 0 baptisms 5 years running, no outreach, internal focus. And we have plenty of those.
So we all need to hit our knees and pray for revival in our churches.
Roger,
VERY well said. And as we talk about the need for prayer, let us remember what prayer changes the most .. US!!! If the people of our churches truly prayed and sought God’s heart, the doors of these “closed,” dying churches would be thrown open to other ethnic groups and congregations.
Could it be, in some places, that our prejudices are stronger than our prayer lives? Food for thought …
Roger…so very true. And as Cyle pointed out in an earlier post, we must pray without ceasing. send a great revival to my soul and the souls of our churches.
how many churches do you think are out there like the one you’ve described Roger? selahV
Geoff:
Thanks for an insightful and prayer-provoking post. I serve as a DOM in a large, southern metro area and deal with the concepts and challenges you set forth on an almost daily basis. The real challenge is well expressed in your post and the comments–some believe we must never give up on a declining or dying church while others promote a “death with dignity” sort of philosophy and encourage seriously declining churches to “will” their assets to new church starts. I have done some recent study on the “life-cycle of churches” and was struck by two particular observations: First, was the author who validated the birth-to-death life-cycle of a church by concluding that none of the churches the Apostle Paul started are still alive today. Second, was Aubrey Malphurs work on strategic planning that affirmed the only way to address the down side of the life-cycle curve is to start new curves through both church planting and church revitalization strategies. Both would affirm that churches do die of natural causes and that new starts or restarts are only generated by supernatural power. Forgive the long comment. It is an interesting subject and I appreciate your treatment of it.
Mike,
Thanks for stopping by and contributing to the conversation.
I don not believe it is necessarily an “either-or” but a “both-and” perspective. In some cases, we must encourage the dissolution of assets and direct investment in church planting. In other situations, like Roger’s, we should encourage church revitalization … but TRUE revitalization. Not just the same “product” with a new name. And that is very hard to do in traditional Southern Baptist life.
BTW … you’re THE Mike Day from Memphis, right?
Say a big hello to Jim Muston for me. I was youth minister at Cordova Baptist from 1989-1995. My wife is a native Memphian, and my in-laws are Germantown folk. We get back to visit on occasion. :)
awh, Geoff, I’m just trying to keep the home fires burning while you are out slaving away. :)
I admire your enthusiam and ideas, son. And I think we old coggers can learn alot from your ideas. I’m saying we do not know which die because we let them die as brothers and sisters within the convention. Some of us could help those struggling financially, we could even send leaders to help build them up. What do we do was you question to us. You said you didn’t know. I was just offering a few suggestions and part of which included prayer.
And yes, action is needed–but action for the sake of action can lead to spinning wheels in the mud. Prayer–unceasing prayer will change us and others. Without God’s direct intervention into the hearts of these folk who refuse to open their doors to ethnic folk and innercity neighbors, nothing will happen. No matter how much cajoling or reprimanding we do. Our hearts must be broken for the lost and the apathetic hearts of our brothers and sisters in Christ. That’s all I’m saying. Sorry I couldn’t make it clearer. selahV
Geoff: help me, bro. when you say we need to encourage churches to redirect their assets, who are “we”? the convention, associations? And what assets are we proposing to redirect? cooperative program monies? thanks. selahV
Anyone who is involved in Church planting / revitalization at a local (assoc.) or state level.
I’m simply saying that when churches reach a point in their history when they have so many assets (buildings, etc…) and not enough people to support and maintain those assets, our denom. leaders should encourage them to consider other choices, such as co-op use of their buildings, strategic re-starts, or dissolution and investment in church planting, among others.
I’m not talking about CP monies … I’m talking about investments, real property, etc…
Associations in metro areas (such as Mike Day above) deal with these hard decisions and issues every day.
Geoff: on that I totally agree. how can we as SB help to encourage the DOM’s in this regard? selahV
I wish I knew.
Perhaps we could simply discover and make known those incredible, rare situations where churches on the brink of closing are re-started or recycled into new life through new congregations.
I think it’s all a matter of education and vision.
Chiming in here late in the evening…
Let me offer a few thoughts from the associational perspective. One of the very best things a church can do TODAY is to build into its constitution a clause that says that if the church ceases to function, the property is given to the local Baptist association to be sold or used for new churches.
Notice I said sold or used. Some of our churches have a clause which says “must be used for a new church” but the sanctuary seats 800 and we don’t have any new churches anywhere near that big. Or the building leaks like a sieve and utilities are more than a new church can afford. Or most of the building is a sanctuary with a sloped floor, rendering it useless for small groups, fellowship meals or any other function but presentational worship. Or the windows are oddly-shaped and 40 feet tall, making it impossible to use a projector and screen on a bright Sunday morning. Or…get my drift?
In this case it is best that a property be sold and the money endowed for church planting or used to buy another facility. Churches that are healthy enough to get that clause in their constitution can protect their church’s future legacy. I have heard of situations where the finances got so bad that the church borrowed money against the building and the bank ended up owning it; where they rented to another congregation and when the SBC congregation dwindled to nothing, the other church basically took the property; where the congregation voted to sell the building and divide the assets among themselves (illegal but it happens), or give them to the United Way. So it is very important to have that clause in your constitution, and make it virtually unchangeable.
Another thing churches can do is ask their association for help in relocating. Often we have a congregation that could swap properties with another congregation of a different ethnicity and both end up closer to those they are trying to reach.
Last, Selah asked how many congregations like this are around:
What is not good is stagnation, 0 baptisms 5 years running, no outreach, internal focus. And we have plenty of those.
My answer is: too many. I know that we are pursuing a new church plant in a small town in Georgia. The association has 15 churches. 7 of them did not baptize anyone last year. Of those, 6 did not baptize anyone the year before. 5 of those have attendance averages in the single digits.
If they were willing, we could combine some of those congregations, which would give them more dynamic worship, more people to serve in various roles, better finances, and more dynamic ministry. Then we could sell the unneeded building and put money into planting churches that complement, rather than compete with, the body of Christ in that area.
These are a few ideas and items from the associational perspective. I hope that’s helpful.
Roger:
Excellent observations. In your opinion, is it best to establish an associational “Foundation” to handle recipt and disposition of properties? Or…have you seen some other approach work better?
Geoff:
I will give your greetings to Dr. Jim and Cordova BC!
Yikes…should have been “receipt”, not “recipt”
I’m coming in late on the conversation, but I want to add my two cents. Geoff, I read the post on The Naked Church site. I’ve read your post. I’ve read the Scripture. Let me try to nutshell this. I have pastored two churches in two rural communities of about 3,000 population. One in West Texas. One in West Louisiana. The church in Texas was old and dying. The church in Louisiana wasn’t old and dying. It was on life support. I have no church planting training. I have no revitalization training. So, what I’m saying is this. I don’t really know what I’m doing. In the first church, we prayed fervently. I preached the Word. The church doubled in size in three years. I went to the second church. I’ve been here ten years. We fervently prayed. I preached the Word. We tripled in size in three years. Then we lost half our members because we did grow so much(and because I don’t know what I’m doing). Now we are still twice as big as we were and we give 23% a year to fund other mission work. We baptized about 20 this year. One year we baptized 63. One year we baptized only 6.
The only place in Scripture that talks about “local” churches and church death is in the Revelation of Jesus to John. The churches that were in trouble were going to die if they didn’t repent. As far as I can tell, the only churches that die are those that don’t repent (meaning, admitting God is right, they are wrong, and then doing what God says is right). I cannot give up on a church as long as there is a single Christian there praying, repenting, and doing what God says is right. I live in a parish in Louisiana with nearly 60 Baptist churches and a total population of only 28,000. Yet, in this area there are 22,000 unchurched people. Most churches average less than 30 in attendance on a Sunday morning. Most have baptized no one in years. Yet, if I were to strategically place church buildings in this parish to reach the unchurched, I would place them almost exactly where those church buildings are. Do they all need a new vision? I don’t know, but I think they do.
My friend at FBC here believes we should shut them down and move the people together. That’s more survivalist than evagelistic. I believe prayer can change the generation of people in these churches, and I believe we haven’t prayed fervently for it to do so. I don’t have an answer. I know this, though. Regardless of the idea of shutting them down, they aren’t going to shut down. They may die out, but they aren’t going to shut down. So, our only option is to go around them, or pray that God will work through them. Probably we need to do both, and that is what our church has done.
I know you are not proposing this, but some propose to euthanize many of our churches. I don’t think that’s the answer. I only see a Scriptural pattern for churches dying to themselves to live through Christ. Now, when they’re already dead, swing for the bleachers. Until then, I say we pray.
Sorry, my nutshell was verbose.
Mike,
I do think a foundation or a New Church Team or both is the best way to handle the funds. But I would make certain that those on the foundation understand church planting and the value of investing in church planters and resources as well as buildings and land. Property is not the only need of new churches and is not a need at all for some (multi-housing, house churches, etc.) So they need to be willing and educated in how to invest in a multiplicity of needs through an endowment. I’d be glad to talk with you in more detail about it if you want to give me a call. I’d love to know what you all are doing there in church planting.
Cyle,
Part of the problem with our “churches” is that we make a distinction that I do not believe God makes. We are more concerned with the growth of ______ Baptist Church than we are with the kingdom and the health of the local body of Christ. This attitude needs to change. And we cannot make that happen but we can teach and influence to that end.
In the SBC, we do not have bishops. Neither associations nor state conventions can make churches shut down of course, and we cannot euthanize what we do not control. What we can do is to help them see options. In Maine we had a church with 10 people left. The leaders were 3 older women. They asked for my help and I told them three options as I saw it: 1)sell their building and hire the best pastor they could and start over, 2)muddle along without a pastor or with a volunteer pastor (hard to find in Maine), or 3) join our growing church 5 miles away and help us reach the area. They chose option 3. It was entirely up to them, but I wanted them to know they were welcome and would be valued at our church. And they have thrived there. So as we have opportunity to present options, we should.
If prayer can change hearts for a church to become evangelistic, it can also change hearts and show where a church needs to merge into another. Both are viable and neither have to be survivalistic. Both can be evangelistic options, especially if they merge into a church which is already evangelistic. But in every case, these small, struggling congregations must be treated with respect and given a sense of what their legacy can be if they allow God to work in and through them.
I know this is an old thread – but I’ll comment anyway, even if just to satisfy myself.
I am the bi-vocational pastor of a non-traditional relatively new church in Tulsa, OK. (SBC) Our church presently meets in an industrial area, and we have maxed out the facilities. Our call and vision is to reach the unchurched. God has sent many people our way who are unable to give much money. We invest a large percent of what comes in back into those we are reaching for Christ.
We have been searching for a suitable building for almost a year and a half. Unfortunately, we are unable to continue our growth because our facilities are so limited. As we search for properties, we drive past dozens of churches that are dying – but are unwilling to share (at a price) their facilities. When the deacons and leaders meet our tattooed, Harley-riding members and leaders, they are very reluctant to even speak to us.
In the three years I’ve been pastoring this church, we average over 20 baptisms a year. All the signs of life are there – and it is frustrating that we are unable to find a location on our own. It is depressing that our brothers and sisters in arms who could help us are simply more interested in maintaining control over what is “theirs” than in assisting a poor, but effective congregation.
We understand this is our reality, and we harbor no bitterness toward our fellow brothers and sisters. It has left some of our new converts confused, however.
Why would someone rather see their church facilities deteriorate or not be used, rather than simply sharing and facilitating a smaller congregation in reaching the community?
Leave your response!
Want your picture to show here? Get your own Gravatar!
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Hot Topics