linnposts.com

This one is for people who go to church or used to go or who are at least willing to read something about the church.

I still think about the church even in retirement. I used to think about it all the time, but I try not to these days. Still, I care about the church too much to leave it in the hands of people who have no vision, take no chances, or who like the way things are now. That’s because from where I sit the church looks to be in real trouble. What many congregations are and do these days is to a disturbing degree not worth being and doing. I say this for several reasons, not least that churches have buildings that force them to turn in on themselves and spend most of their time and resources on maintenance. I realize this challenges the pervasive notion that the bigger a church building becomes, the more successful a congregation is. But I suggest the opposite is actually the case. The bigger a building is, the more maintenance it requires, which in turn inevitably makes it less able to follow the example of the life and ministry of Jesus.

That brings me to a radical idea. What if churches took the words of Jesus spoken to the rich young man as a command for themselves. He was a good man who tried to keep Torah law faithfully, but felt like he needed something more. Jesus invited the man to follow him, but there was a condition – “…go, sell what you possess and give to the poor…” (Matthew 19:21). While Jesus was speaking to the man’s particular situation and need, it doesn’t seem far-fetched to think his particular situation was stunningly similar to that of most American churches. They have too much material wealth to make the kind of commitment following Jesus requires. So what if churches today heard these words of Jesus as applying to the themselves. What would they do? Here is an example of one that took Jesus’ words seriously.

Gordon and Mary Cosby founded the Church of the Savior in Washington, D.C. with the intention of doing church in a radically different way. This resulted in seeing buildings in a fresh and new way. They chose to buy property only when it was needed to house and support specific missions. They refused to build buildings just to accommodate their own wants, needs, and comforts. Instead, mission properties doubled as gathering places for C of S members. So Dayspring farm that made the For Love of Children mission and a silent retreat center possible also served as a place where Dayspring Church began to meet when it was formed. The Potter’s House has served not only as a coffee house and bookstore for the community, but also as a place where Eight Day Church has met for worship. The same has been true for other mission buildings such as those focused on low income housing, medical services, or caring for AIDS patients. The buildings the various communities of faith that make up the Church of the Savior use now initially existed for missions. Using them for worship and other “church” meetings has always been secondary to the ministry they were called to do. As a result, they never faced the question of whether to leave “a changing neighborhood” and move to the suburbs as so many congregations have.

This approach is, of course, the reverse of how most churches function. They own buildings that exist first and foremost for the use of the members. Whatever they do in mission, and that is usually quite limited, is done outside the church building. In some congregations efforts to actually use a church building for mission often meets with strong resistance, which tells you all you need to know about how far off the track churches are.

But I think if ministers began to teach their congregations to view their building as a mission center instead of a place for them to enjoy, it would eventually transform church life across the country. It would also lead to a significant change in the role of ministers. They would be paid not to minister to the members and to plan programs that interest them. Instead, ministers would focus primarily on equipping church members to discern and follow their call in ministry. They would teach and preach in ways that challenge church members to re-evaluate their own personal values and priorities on a regular basis in order to minimize conforming to the values and priorities of the dominant culture. In short, the role of the minister would be to help churches be the church that focuses on mission instead of maintenance, focuses on being mission rather than an organization that has a mission.

But…can this happen and can it work in churches today? Of course it can. But will it? Who knows? But this much I do know. Doing church the way it has always been done is just not worth it anymore, at least to me. Based on the current dropout rate, a lot of people apparently agree.