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?

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.

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.

Geoff:
I will give your greetings to Dr. Jim and Cordova BC!

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.

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.

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.