Over this past weekend some friends of mine organized a tour of 5 historic churches in and around Winnipeg, Canada. Winnipeg may not have the large cathedrals of Europe, but it does have some interesting churches for sure. The tour was great, and although I do like the look of old stain glass windows, stone and large organs I have been thinking about the need of a church building lately.
I have been with the church I currently attend from it’s beginning. At first we met in a private residence, then in a school theater and now in a church we own for about 3-4 years. We started out with around 20-30 members and now, 7 years later, we are at 30-40 members.
I think the process we went through to get to our church is fairly typical of most new churches. It is actually pretty much expected; you start off small in a house and as soon as you can you buy a building. The more that I think about this idea however, the more I am coming to dislike it.
Two major arguments that I can remember were put forward when my church was discussing buying a building:
1. Our currently arrangements are working out right now, but since we don’t own the building we don’t have a lot of control and if we want to do more we will need our own space.
2. If we buy a building it will show the community that we are a serious church and here to stay.
Looking back on it I’m not sure which of these arguments is worse.
Although a church may face a situation where their current arrangements for building use are no longer workable to jump to the conclusion that they need their own building, is well a bit of a jump. Has any other options actually be considered? Can a better space be rented? Is the “more” you want to do actually not feasible or is it just a bit harder? Is there another opportunity besides the “more” that your current building allows instead?
Although buying a building does keep your worship service in the community for the long run, how much bigger of a statement would it be if most of the people attending the church moves themselves and their families into the community? Although the community may expect a church to meet in a church building, should that prevent us from attempting to do something different?
The more and more I think back on my own churches decision to buy the building I can see that it was done simply becasue that is how the members were brought up; church=church building. Each church, that is a real church, will eventually end up in a building. It’s sad, but I am convinced that we’ve been programmed into accepting the belief that a church needs a church building to be successful.
It seems that once a church buys a building they can often become stuck in a certain mentality where, becasue we have the building, the way church is done takes on a certain character. The ministry is focused around the building (which is used on Sundays, and maybe during a prayer service during the week), and almost becomes less creative. It’s almost as if before you have a church building the church is open to new ways of doing things out of necessity. Being creative is encourage. Once the building is purchased you look to how other churches with buildings do things and you follow them as close as you can.
Perhaps I seem to be a bit to hard on churches with buildings here. I don’t mean to be. There are churches that have buildings that put them to good use. They open them up to the community, use them as drop in centers, perform concerts in them, host speakers and such. Those are great things to do. What I’m being critical of here is the church who believes that to legitimate themselves they need a building and then go about using that building a few hours each week. It’s a waste. If your using your church only for Sunday mornings and mid week prayer you likely could be doing that within a house or rented facility far cheaper.
What I would like to see churches that decided to buy a building do, is use the building throughout the week. I listed a few things earlier that you could do with it, but there are a lot more. What needs are there in the community you live in? Could the space be used to touter kids after school? If it’s in an area with a lot of businesses could it be opened up for prayer at lunch? Are there volunteer organizations that need space during the week? I don’t think that every church needs a building, I think actually far less do then have them, but it troubles me that many of those that do have them are not really using them.
I agree, a major reason churches get church buildings (or new, bigger church buildings) is simply because that’s what they think they’re supposed to do. Another part of it is that people think how their can grow their church instead of think how they can grow the Church.
My church addressed that issue by changing/refocusing its mission. It has always been a “suburban” church on the outside edge of urban Minneapolis, and in recent years there was the typical pressure (due to building limitations and the fact that most attendees lived much farther out into the suburbs) to build a new building in the new suburbs, now that the old suburbs had become much more urban. Instead, my pastor and the elders decided to become a urban multicultural church rather than “flee” the urban sprawl. This has caused a pretty significant loss in attendance from people who did not like the direction the church is headed and/or the methods employed to do that. We’ve changed our name, adjusted our worship style, started a bunch of urban-oriented ministries, and replaced quite a few pastors. All that instead of constructing a new building.
My main concern regarding buildings and resources is that churches don’t use them collaboratively. If my church builds a gym with a full basketball court, I would expect that they should ENCOURAGE neighboring churches to make use of our facilities for their membership and for their ministry to others. If they have a trained marriage counselor on staff, I would expect them to encourage us to make use of that staff member.
In a large corporation, various facilities are built as needed by the larger organization. If the San Jose office has training classes, they encourage the San Francisco office to attend. I would like to see churches work similarly. Your “local church” group is a workgroup pursuing common ministry and growth in Christ together. It should interact with other workgroups to achieve our corporate goals.
My church actually does “rent” the building to another church that meets in our building. Interestingly, the church that rents our facility is larger than ours and seemingly has more resources. They see no need to buy a building that they only want to use a few times a week. (They also seem to use it more than us though.) Churches should collaborate more to help achieve our mutual goals.
Couldn’t agree more Atanamis. In my perfect scenario the weekly studies would be handled in small groups/home fellowships. These would pool their money together to buy or rent a larger building for bi-monthly or monthly get-togethers for the larger body in an area. Compared to the way it is currently done, I see specialized buildings not being required near as much.
Not every church needs a building, but every community should have at least one visible church building. It’s a visible place that people in need can come and be helped. The members of the church don’t need a building, but it’s a great way to advertise to the community that if they need help, all they have to do is go to the church.
Of course, that’s predicated on the assumption that somebody will be at the church to help, 24 hours a day, every day. If a person can’t walk into the church building and get help for any problem (even if it’s a referral to someone who can be of help) then the church isn’t serving the community as well as it can.
A smaller church probably can’t staff the building 24 hours a day, but you get my point. Not every church needs a building, but every community should be served by a church.
I’m not so sure about the “24 hours a day” thing… it’s not a Walmart.
You are 100% correct.
There is no record at all of the NT church buying property. To the contrary they SOLD property in order to give more to those in need. It really hurts the ministry when the church invests HUGE sums of money into worldly investments. With millions of starving children around the world, a building is the LEAST “kingdom minded” expense.
The biggest excuse for this “addition” to God’s perfect model of the church is that “there are too many people to fit into a house.” It’s interesting to me that the early church had THOUSANDS of people convert as times, and yet never strayed from the home church pattern. This forced them to break up into smaller groups, and allowed MUCH more participation then you see in modern mega-churches. The scripture outlines that every believer is responsible for participating in a local body. The bigger your church, the less likely you will experience spiritual growth. The holy spirit CAN work in these places, but many benefits are lost by straying from God’s perfect plan.
There is no record at all of the NT church buying property. To the contrary they SOLD property in order to give more to those in need.
Wow. This is very true and very convicting.
It’s interesting to me that the early church had THOUSANDS of people convert as times, and yet never strayed from the home church pattern.
I will take issue with this comment. Do you have evidence of this? There is no doubt that the early church did meet in people’s homes, but was that the only place that they met? We can see from the accounts in scripture that they did not cease to use the Temple (Acts 2:46), which held thousands of people. To assume that the early church had a pattern of meeting in homes that they never strayed from doesn’t seem to do justice to scripture; they met in large groups as well. To go even further and say that the bigger the church the less likely you are to experience spiratural growth simply has no scriptural support. God doesn’t give a plan in scripture about what size the church should be.
Also, we do know that some of the synagogues were used to meet in large groups as well.
I agree with Bryan, that statement has NO support from scripture. And taken in conjuction with Old Testament formats, it would seem to be actually contradicted. A main reason that the church met in homes was because they were persecuted (both by the Jews and by the Romans). Yes, small churches have their advantages (as do large churches), but to make them “what God wants” is to fall into the same trap that has caused so many denomination splits over the years: making something theological when it’s merely personal preference.
Can you guys not see these points though?
It really hurts the ministry when the church invests HUGE sums of money into worldly investments. With millions of starving children around the world, a building is the LEAST “kingdom minded” expense.
…and allowed MUCH more participation then you see in modern mega-churches. The scripture outlines that every believer is responsible for participating in a local body.
I think both of these are quite valid, and while cannot be taken from literal scripture, I think can be proven by underlying scriptural principles.
No, I don’t think the second one is valid. Big churches (1000 weekly attendance or more is approximately my definition of a big church) allow for many people to participate in different programs, SS classes, etc. In the service itself, yes, there potentially is less involvement in larger churches. But larger churches more than make up for that by the amount of small groups and classes that are offered.
I grew up in a small church (less than 100 attendees a week) and probably half of them did not attend an adult SS class. Some of this was because they were not following Scripture, but also some of this was tied to the very limited classes available (usually two adult Sunday School classes). Contrast that to the church I now attend (New Hope Church, formerly Crystal Evan. Free), which has 3 services averaging about 700 per service. There are opportunities for everyone to get involved with no excuse that the demographics don’t fit. In other words, there are SS communities for older adults, younger adults, young families, newlyweds, middle-age families, as well as a couple classes for all ages. A small church can’t offer that kind of participation. That doesn’t excuse those who choose not to participate, but it does appear to invalidate that statement. A big church is just a bigger community, and requires more responsibility from its members to divide and conquer (so to speak). I don’t know more than 10% of the members who attend my church, but I don’t have to know everyone to be significantly involved (leadership team for SS class, Men’s Bible Study, and church sports & fellowship teams).
Does your large church have multiple opportunities for those gifted as the following:
- lead pastors
- worship leaders
- musicians
- speakers
- teachers
I have yet to find a big church that allows equal opportunity for ministry in these areas.
Lead pastors - Not sure what you mean here. If you mean like a position equal to that of the senior pastor, no. If you mean the opportunity to preach the sermon, yes. All of the pastors (Men’s, Youth, Children’s, Family, Missions, Associate, etc.) are called on to preach from time to time. As for members of the general laity getting the opportunity to preach, I don’t find this particularly Biblical. If they feel called to preach, they should be trained in and study the Bible and theology at seminary.
Worship leaders - There is one main worship leader, but many worship teams with members of the congregation having ample opportunity (if gifted in music) to both be in the choir and a part of the worship team. My wife is now (after only 3 years) on the worship leadership team. Once a month, they have a “gospel music” Sunday where the music is generally more upbeat and anyone in the congregation (regardless of ability) can sing in the choir if they feel so led. Music-wise, I think anyone in the church is able to get involved.
Musicians - This might be a bit of a weak spot, though I am not sure how exactly the church runs this. I do know that some musicians (a minority) are paid professionals, but for the most part, the musicians are made up of anyone in the congregation who is called to serve and have that gift. There are usually anywhere from a half dozen to a dozen musicians each week.
Speakers - If you’re referring to speakers in the actual service, outside of the pastors and some of the elders, it is unlikely that a member of the congregation would have the opportunity to preach (though there are numerous times where lay people get up and speak during the service about a ministry opportunity, something God has done in their lives, etc.). The preaching is reserved primarily for the pastors, but sharing is definitely encouraged.
Teachers - Outside of the sermon, teaching is more reserved for outside of the service (in SS classes, etc.) In that regard, pretty much anyone, even if they aren’t particularly gifted (though it may keep them from being asked to teach again), can lead a SS class or Awana or Bible Study.
Darius, I want to avoid critiquing your church and focus on the serious scriptural shortcomings I think your response indicates with large churches in a general sense:
Most troubling are I think the lack of opportunities for “senior” pastors and worship leaders. You would think that in a group of 2,100 people there would be more than one person whom God has called to be a senior pastor or a worship leader. For example, there are at least four people in my body (of about 90) who are abundantly gifted to lead worship (I am not talking about the other musicians). I am talking about people equipped to administrate and coordinate the music and then lead the actual music itself. It’s not just “the best” of these four that gets to do all the worship - the bible declares that the gifts are for everyone’s profit. It is essential both for them and for the body that these gifts are exercised. A large church may have 50 people who can lead worship in their body and yet maybe 48 or 49 of them are formally restricted from exercising their gift. This is a major problem.
My point is not one of opportunity or administration, but really of simple mathematics. Is the body of Christ so immature and weak that there are only a few leaders per thousand?
In many ways, I think this is how the protestant church has gone back to Catholicism’s mistake of church hierarchy. Instead of creating position after position, the protestant church has simply restricted the entry into leadership. Your statement about your wife (after only three years) disturbs m - because if she is gifted (and I take your word that she is) it should not be some long process to have her gift used in the body (obviously, you can’t make these opportunities simply free-for-alls either). That is three years where your body missed out on your wife’s wonderful gift!
Again, this is totally routine in large churches. Only one or two senior pastors and one or two worship leaders for thousands of believers. It’s crazy!
I don’t quite see how taking 3 years to get into a position of leadership is such a horrible thing. It’s pretty basic, really. To some extent, one has to prove themselves worthy and actually show that they have a gift. My wife spent 3 years in the choir, with the option to move up to a leadership role offered to her repeatedly after the first year or so. After all, it’s not like my wife is filling an empty spot, someone else with a gift for music had to vacate it.
As for worship leaders, perhaps I wasn’t very clear. There is one guy who takes the lead, and most responsibility, for the worship (just as the husband has to take ultimate leadership and responsibility even though the wife have a significant role to play in a marriage), but the music is chosen by a rotating number of leaders, and the worship is led by about 4 different teams, one each week of the month or so. I don’t really see how one could ask for much more opportunity without getting into pure anarchy and chaos. I think there should ALWAYS be a worship leader who is ultimately in charge (even if he delegates much of his responsibilities week to week).
As for lead pastor, I don’t see that the position can be taken for granted and treated so frivolously as you appear to do. It is a very serious role within the church, and must be manned (literally, in my opinion :)) by someone very gifted (not partially gifted as you seem fine with) and learned in the faith and the Word. There may be plenty of people in the laity equally gifted, but until they are trained in that gift and have a deeper knowledge of the faith, they shouldn’t have equal opportunity to preach. While you wouldn’t probably admit this, you are proposing a near free-for-all.
While you wouldn’t probably admit this, you are proposing a near free-for-all.
I will admit that I propose a system with considerably less hierarchy and without a concept of “positions” as a primary use of exercising gifts in the body (instead I think usage of gifts should dictate positions, not the other way around). To the many Christians who have been born or raised into a hierarchical structure, this would probably seem like anarchy - indeed, is has to me for most of my Christian walk. But this is the same reason that the protestant reformation seemed like an anarchistic movement to the even more rigid and hierarchical Catholic Church.
It’s basically human nature: man likes to make up little rules and positions for himself to concretize the abstractions of spirituality. To many, even though the bible is blatantly against it, the perceived safety of religion is just too tough to let go of. Many people cannot fathom order and organization without people to make rules and then people to follow them; people giving orders and people taking them.
I am not advocating an abolishment of positions and authority in the church, but a reevaluation of where it comes from. Clearly gifts must be refined if people are to use them in leadership positions. But that refining process need not be arbitrarily restricted by church size. A pastor of 50 can be just as gifted as a pastor of 5,000. A pastor is a pastor - he is not defined by the number of his flock but by the quality of his gift. If this is the case, it strikes me as overly restrictive to only allow one pastor per 5,000 by restricting the position. If people in the body manifest those giftings they should be trained and used.
I guess I would agree that big churches maybe don’t provide as much opportunity to refine one’s gifts as a smaller church, but if the person is gifted and willing to get out of their comfort zone, even a big church provides plenty of opportunities. Maybe not in preaching a sermon, but in teaching an SS class (which I don’t find to be that big of a difference). Maybe not in leading the entire worship service, but in leading one particular worship team.
To me, a much bigger problem in the Church today are those laymen who choose to do nothing except sit in the pews and go home straight after. In today’s churches (mine not being an exception), it seems like 30-40% of the congregation only attend the service and nothing else. This is a complete antithesis of what the Bible repeatedly states. Almost all churches offer significant opportunities to expand at least some of the laity’s gifts, but so few take advantage of that.
Some of this problem might be found in the fact that the pews are full of unbelievers (or weak believers) who want an emotional high for the week or want to taste of the things of God without fully partaking or actually having any accountability or responsibility.
I agree with all of that Darius. So much that you will get an “amen” from me.
I would just say that there is a nuance here:
Maybe not in preaching a sermon, but in teaching an SS class
I am talking about “laymen” who should (because of their giftings) be learning to become full-on pastors.I would think that God would provide more than one pastor to 5,000 laymen. Teaching a SS class is a great thing for a laymen, but that is merely teaching. What about a man who has the other gifts required of a pastor as well? Obviously there is a burden on the man to use his gifts, but also on the church to do the right thing and allow him that by planting.