I recently read a note from a 2004 publication that said that of the approximately 400,000 churches in America it is estimated that around 60,000 will close within the next 10-15 years. In 10 years that would be 115 churches closing each week. Although the note I read doesn't say, I would guess that most of those churches will be smaller congregations that finally lost their struggle to survive. Could your church be included in these numbers?
Like most tragic events, we always think they only happen to the "other guy." We won't be the one diagnosed with a fatal disease; we won't be the one in a tragic accident; it won't be one of our family members who struggles with addiction. As ministers and church leaders we don't want to think that it will be our church that will close its doors, but if this article is right 115 churches each week for the next 10 years will be locking its doors for the last time. If our church has been struggling for some time to stay open there is no reason to believe that it won't be our church included in these numbers.
It is time we have some honest dialogue with our churches. Unless some of our churches are willing to make significant changes quickly they are going to close their doors. And, frankly, they probably should. There has been no real ministry existing in some of these churches for decades. The most these churches offer is an opportunity for the handful who remain to get together once a week. This could be done just as well in someone's home which would probably make for a better experience for everyone anyway.
If a church sees that its days are numbered why not go out in style? I see some churches who are able to stay open because faithful Christians from the past contributed sufficient funds for the church to have a fairly large savings or endowment. Until that money is gone the church will remain open. Is that really good stewardship? Would it not be better for such a church to decide to close and give its assets to another ministry, its denominational body, or a missionary organization? At least the money could be used for ministry purposes and not just keeping the lights turned on.
I should hasten to mention that some struggling churches still have time to turn it around if they are willing to ask themselves some hard questions and make some significant changes. It will mean that the church will have to decide they exist not for themselves but for those who have not yet encountered the living Saviour. Ministry will have to become more important than history. It may require the congregation to be willing to say good-by to those who do not want to make the necessary changes in order to reach future generations. It will likely require much pain as the church transitions from its current situation to one that is healthier, but this pain is the price the church must pay if it wishes to continue to have a ministry in the future.
As I say in my workshops, your church is today what it decided 5 years ago, 10 years ago, and even 20 years ago what it was going to be. Your church will be 5 years from now, 10 years from now, and 20 years from now what you decide today it will be. Every church leader should know...you will make that decision. Deciding not to decide is making the decision, and your church will one day reflect that decision.
3 comments:
We are in the middle of trying to open up those hard decisions for discussion. With our savings dwindling down quickly, our time is limited if we don't make some moves now.
The problem is that small historic churches tend to move slowly and inefficiently.
The question is, how do you find the balance between addressing these problems that need to be addressed immediately, and not being cast in the role of the outsider that wants to come in and change everything people love?
You have hit the nail on the head. Change, tho painful, is vital for churches to survive. That does not mean we throw out the Bible, but it might mean we toss some man made traditions.
Great question, Friar. One of the things I would recommend is to invite someone from the outside to work with the church regarding needed changes, etc. This removes the pastor from being seen as the villian by those who will oppose changing anything. That outsider can be a denominational leader, consultant, or coach. It also helps to have someone to look at your situation with a different set of eyes.
Terry is right that there are some things that must not be changed such as the Scriptures. We sometimes see churches want to minimize the authority of the Scriptures to be more politically correct and attract people, but such churches will eventually fail because they are built on a false foundation. What can, and often must, change are those man-made traditions that made sense 50 years ago but are no longer effective. Remember, our man-made traditions of today once replaced older traditions that were found to not be effective back when they were changed.
This is a great topic, and Friar has asked an important question. I would love to hear some answers from our other readers.
Post a Comment