OK, so I’m talking about church buildings becoming less prominent in the future as Christians move to smaller gatherings. Then Ed Stetzer publishes research showing that megachurches continue to grow in number. The annoying thing about Ed is that he doesn’t just make assertions; he has statistics to back it up.
Even so, I think we need to remember something very important: most human organizations lose their original purpose. Some quickly, some not so quickly, but most change their initial goals for one common to such groups: survival. It’s easy for our focus to be on continuing existence of our group. That’s especially true for a congregation.
We need to be careful that we want to reach younger generations so that they will come to a saving relationship with God. It’s not about keeping our lights turned on. It’s not about having a place for us to meet when we get old. We want to reach out (be it to young people, Hispanics, or bank presidents) so that people will hear the good news of salvation.
If we’re not careful, the fact that “this congregation has been here for over 70 years” takes precedence over the question of whether the congregation is serving the Kingdom or not. If the congregation’s focus becomes survival, maybe it’s time to let others take its place.
So why do we have a building? There can be a number of reasons: having a place where a large number of us can worship together, having a place for outreach effort, having space for educational activities for our kids, having a unifying location. But our continuing as a congregation and maintaining a common piece of property have to be secondary to the good of the Kingdom. We need to seek his Kingdom and righteousness. When that’s our goal, the rest will be worked out, be it in a large building or in scattered house churches.
Tim, I read Stetzer’s article but I don’t think he is reading the statistics correctly because there is more to consider. There is a new survey by Barna. The survey shows that churches under a 100 are on the rise as well as the mega churches. Churches in between are declining. The interpretation behind this is that people are looking for more intimate relationships and they are seeking those relationships in small churches (family like setting) and mega churches because these churches have small group settings. I think that if people (and I’m certainly not going to contend that all people seek the same things) are looking for intimacy then as long as people perceive that mega churches can provide it the mega churches will continue to grow. Of course some people are looking at other issues beside intimacy and that’s why they chose a mega church over a small church.
I agree with your assessment of how we should view our building and property. Changes are coming in our society and maybe those changes will force us to reconsider our building and we function as a congregation.
Thank you, Bob. That is helpful analysis.
I haven’t had a chance to read Stetzer’s blog yet but I am always skeptical about surveys regarding megachurches and church growth. The question I always am interested in is how much of that growth is attributed to people who decided to leave their church (whatever that church is) and join the megachurch? That is also to ask, how much of that church growth is “kingdom growth”?
Any ways, having served in churches who own their own property/building and now in a church that does not. I can say that there are advantages and disadvantages to having and not having an owned property/building. But I have seen churches who were poor-stewards of the building they owned and who also allowed the building to become barrier to mission. So the question of what will the church do with its own building is an important question that must be answered. If it will be a place where in addition to worship gatherings, other helpful community groups (e.g., Alcohol Anonymous) can meet then that seems good. But if the building will mean that church ministry becomes about trying to get the community to come to us rather than us going among our community, then forget the building.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Our history was that of “growing into” the need for a building. I guess that is different than “growing inside” of a building and taking the building for granted. Even then, we grew more outside of the building than in it. Neighborhood groups still continued to be added and nurtured. So, my first reaction is to consider growth factors irregardless of buildings.
Like you, I do not want to even get close to criticizing earlier generations and their decisions. Since we stand on others’ shoulders, we have been blessed by their commitment and devotion. How might we imitate that faith, devotion and sacrifice in our decisions today?
Maybe we need to consider these assets more creatively? What parts of our “local” culture may be better served for the growth of the Kingdom?