Church Burns Down and Decides Not To Rebuild Building
Church Burns Down and Decides Not To Rebuild Building
This is the headline introduced by the first of 33 exercises presented in Portable Faith: How to Take Church To Your Community, which arrives in bookstores across the country today.
The exercise is summarized below, but the book contains a much expanded version, including a hypothetical newspaper article and a series of reflection questions.
Imagine your church’s building was unexpectedly destroyed in a natural disaster. Even though the building was insured, your pastor and the church board make a surprising decision not to rebuild it right away. Rather, they decide to take a year to reflect on how your congregation does church and consider how you might be able to function as a congregation in the community…even without a building. After a year of living and being the church in the community, the leadership expects to reconstruct a completely different building that reflects what the congregation learns during their year.
So how about you? How much of your church’s existing programs could be carried our without a building? How many would require slight tweaking? How do you think the congregation would take the news about the disaster and the elder’s decision? What kind of building do you think you would build after a year of doing church building-less? Leave a comment about how you think this scenario would play out in your world.
Enjoying this topic? I’ll be sharing a new exercise from the book every Monday for the next 9 weeks. You can also check out the reader comments from last week’s post, where people shared books that had been influential in shaping their ideas about “outreach”. If you enjoyed it, please share.
Or you can get the book here and read this exercise and others in full.
Vic Cameron April 1, 2013 (9:55 am)
Very interesting concept and exercise!
As a fellowship we took the decision not to find a building, but rent space instead, allowing us to move twice in 3 years and also to free up resource to sow into people and needs in our area.
I will be very interested in the replies and comments to this.
Michele April 1, 2013 (10:07 am)
I think this would be a cleansing, especially for churches who have been around a long time. What are we still doing just because we’ve always done it? I’m a little confused as to where you actually meet on a Sunday, but perhaps that is a rental situation…alot would depend on the area and climate of where you are. We have too much winter to ever think of anything outside. (and humid summers) The greatest outcome would be to see what really evolves …what is important enough to keep doing.
Angela April 1, 2013 (10:26 am)
We are a relatively new church plant, so this has most recently been the reality for us, as we just got a permanent space to call our own. We have always tried to be the church in the community and really live the fact that our building doesn’t really matter. As a result, I feel that we have a wonderful community based church that is very relational.
Dennis April 1, 2013 (10:35 am)
Great question for week one… Point form answer,
Building burns nothing left… All legalist leave, they say no structure no church, period.
Grace lovers embrace it and open their homes, now we have many small relationship church meeting together and a safe place for new people to come to. More unchurched people coming to check out this Jesus, Grace thing.
We recognize the need that periodically we all need to meet, share, praise and pray together. Rent a local large facility as required. Take our surplus monies (insurance payout and weekly offerings), open local food banks and free clothing centre, counselling centre (no-charge) and meet the real needs in our city.. No one in ministry likes to hear this, North America has way more church buildings then it needs, another new big bright church structure to marvel at is just a waste. We are missing the point of what Jesus came for… We bought the lie the snake told us, “build it and they will come” how about meeting people at their biggest need and help them right there. Then let Holy and Jesus do the rest… Right in our community our house or even on the street, not in our new five million dollars structure that we call the house of God.
I believe it’s time to get real instead of right
Sarah April 1, 2013 (10:48 am)
@vic, I’d love to interview you or have you write a short guest post on your choice to do this if you’re up for it. :)
@michelle, I agree it could be CLEANSING in a huge way. A start-over. :) And I left it open ended how people would figure that out. It could be a rental for weekly meetings, house meetings, once a month gatherings in open places…I’ll be interested to see how people solve that question.
@Angela, what a great start for all of you. Are there things you all are doing to ensure you keep this relationship-focus even as you are better suited to offer more programming?
@Dennis, interesting comment about having more space than we need. Wondering how we could use this space differently for our communities? And if we did, we would find we could use all our square footage 7 days a week? :)
Angela April 5, 2013 (3:52 pm)
I really feel so. We have weekly Soul Shift groups that the main direction is to form lasting relationships, a men’s group that is starting to help out in the community, and a women’s group. A couple delivers bread and jam to new guests with a visit. If our building burned down, we’d all be sad, but most of us would find a way to rally together somehow.
Hilary April 1, 2013 (11:26 am)
My first thought was that, for our congregation, this is a non-starter. If our building burnt to the ground there would never be any doubt that it would not be rebuilt. Our church is quite old – the land was donated in the late 1700s and the oldest part of the building was built around 1860. There have been somewhere around seven additions since then, the latest being just a few years ago. It’s safe to say that our building is a treasure to the congregation (and the larger community, I think) and the loss of it would be devastating.
But could we survive as a congregation without the physical building? I would say yes. One of the things that drew me to this church was it’s deep commitment to social justice. When I first took on a leadership role, I quickly began to get a feel for both the breadth and depth of opportunities to be of service. A lot of it involves the ministry of food/feeding – we have a garden plot that provides vegetables to supplement our small food pantry, we cook for homeless shelters, we host a communal meal once a week for busy families to just relax and enjoy each others’ company. There’s more, but that’s all I can think of at the moment. These ministries would likely go on and evolve though.
We take the notion of hospitality seriously. We look for opportunities to turn ourselves outward, rather than inward. This is entirely entwined with our physical church.
Jackie Beauchene April 1, 2013 (11:42 am)
Hello, I thought this was an interesting article. Our church building that we were renting, did burn down. We are renting a building that is being used by another church so it is not consistant, and can not be personalized to make us, “comfortable.” We have been very motivated to work in the community and as of now, we are, to begin with, collecting donations of clothing for our summer clothing giveaway. We are in the process of learning how to reach out to our community in any way we can. I also want to spend a lot of time visiting different businesses consistantly to have coffee or to shop or whatever, in order to get to know the people there too. I am focused on developing relationships with people and meeting them at their level. Funny how this article describes us. Our lease with this building lasts 3 months but can be extended to a year. I am thinking by that time we will have transformed.
Ray Hollenbach April 1, 2013 (12:23 pm)
Hi Sarah:
I can pretty close you living this out, except for the fire part:
Way back in the 1970’s I was part of a church that deliberately chose to go with no building for a while. We met in small groups each week from house-to-house, and then, once a month, all the house-groups came together for a Sunday morning praise and worship time at a conference room in a hotel.
One practical effect was financial–there was more money available for ministry–both outreach to others and ministry to members. The church had a larger staff-to-member ratio, because there was very little money going into facilities.
Another effect was relational. I became close friends with those in my small group, and had a passing acquaintance with others in the church. I still maintain some of those friendships today.
Inviting people to “church” presented two choices–small or big. Some people were put off by the idea of no building. Others were energized by it.
Todd April 1, 2013 (12:57 pm)
What a great exercise to start out with. This is an intriguing one. For the group that I serve alongside, we engaged a “building-less” journey in our early days about 15 years ago. The group then rented space at various locations before finally coming into our present property about 12 years ago, and most recently beginning to look at the question of expansion again.
I think the “shape” of the church would change. It would be smaller, more intimate in focus. However, I think it would be less diverse. We typically operate on laws of attractions (with sameness as one major thrust), for many the facility in which a church chooses to locate serves to become a community gathering point that (can) allow(s) for a point of contact in which we engage each other and the community (especially those who are “different” than us) with the message and life of Christ.
From the reverse perspective, our group purchased an old estate (horse barn is our worship center, and estate house is where we have our classrooms, offices, fellowships, etc. – oh and we have a pool – a nice asset by the way). In many ways, our home environment has actually served to help shape our community. We have many cozy spots that have been valuable for study, counseling, and sharing together allowing us to live out our “family rooms” that are very inviting and much more “at home” than most church buildings.
That all being said, we presently have need for a new facility due to the increase in our body here. We have been asking ourselves what are we most interested in? What community needs arise? How can we serve more people? How do we continue to do the things we have been doing at the rate of increase we are experiencing? The reality for us has been that our most pressing need has simply been an open and useable facility that can bring our growing community together.
danielle Williams April 1, 2013 (1:11 pm)
I would let everyone know that decision has been made, and we feel that it was best. Ive been in this situation and our pastors made a choice to move from one building to another. Although, some people were not happy it was the best decision. change is hard for some, and i would just try to encourage them to trust us.
I would let everyone know that if there were any questions we would be available.
Steve Hinkle April 1, 2013 (2:55 pm)
I love the questions you have asked as they “force” those reading to think through their purposes and future.
When it comes to the question, “What kind of building do you think you would build after a year of doing church building-less” It’s a thought provoking question and at the same time our church plant has been brought to a place of asking if “building” is even necessary or the best way to use our resources. We’ve asked: What about leasing? What about not “destroying more trees” and using the empty buildings already around us? What part of the community should we be located? Being part of His kingdom is about restoration, so maybe restoring an unused building might be part of His redemption in our city?
We first rented space in the local junior college and then a small theater at a local orthopaedic office. Our core group has now stepped away from that building by faith (meeting in homes currently) and are searching for a place to rent for one year. We will then try to raise the one year rent up front for that building. (=
The money we are currently saving from meeting in homes has been used to help the community.
Thanks for the good questions.
Sarah April 1, 2013 (3:27 pm)
@Hilary “We look for opportunities to turn ourselves outward, rather than inward. This is entirely entwined with our physical church” – beautiful. Would love to have you talk more about this some time on this blog. :)
@Jackie, how intriguing that I developed this as a hypothetical and it describes your actual scenario. I’d love to hear more and share more of your story…
@Ray, Love to hear examples of freeing up overhead costs for ministry…so that we’re not giving small percentages of our money to a “missions”-type budget line, while keeping 90% in house.
@Todd, wow. That’s an amazing facility choice. I immediately want to visit. :) I agree choice of building location is an intentional one. It can very much determine what demographic the church serves…and which is doesn’t.
@Danielle, yes. I suspect some people who were especially tied to the building and the memories it represented to them would have the hardest time adapting to this type of scenario…
@Steve, I like the questions you’re asking. I grew up in church plants (my dad is a church planter) and buildings consume a lot of energy and funds. There are strengths that come with having a permanent home, but it’s good to step back and detach sometimes and ask if that is the best use of our investments…
Becky April 1, 2013 (3:53 pm)
I currently attend Village Hope Church on Porter St in Jackson. My family just started attending in September, but I remember when the church started about 7 years ago, and was meeting in a barn. At some point they started renting a facility and then bought the old Bowl-A-Rama and completed the area currently used as the Sanctuary and are working on finishing the rest of the space to fit the needs of the programs and congregation. For the most part, I feel like all of the programs we currently offer could continue to function in some capacity elsewhere in the community, primarily because until just recently that was exactly what happened. The thing I love so much about our church is that the main goal is being Jesus to the surrounding community not having a big, beautiful church building. I feel like the congregation would respond favorably to the decision not to rebuild right away, especially given that the church itself is so “young”.
KC April 1, 2013 (4:06 pm)
We have one church building, and we rent another one in a neighboring community. But honestly, if the church is “the Body”, how important is a building? We can do life together without it…although i suppose that those congregations of a certain size would use a building for worship services…
Sarah April 1, 2013 (4:42 pm)
@becky Bowl-a-rama awesomeness. ;)
@KC Right. Whether we use it or not, I think you’re onto something. It’s de-centralizing our identity from the brick and mortar… it’s reclaiming the gathering that lives as Jesus lives…
Eric Haynes April 1, 2013 (4:55 pm)
Our story probably isn’t that different than a lot of others: we started in the local middle school and community center operating out of a trailer, setting up everything each Sunday morning, then packing it all away. Then we got the opportunity to purchase an existing building, though we had flirted with the idea of never buying a building. Yet, that building, located next to an interstate exchange and behind a QT gas station, doubled our Sunday morning numbers within 6 months. Location and a building can make a difference in terms of the number of people that can be reached, because they can find it, and it feels more “legitimate” to them.
However, we do find ourselves, now that we’re 6 times the size, and outgrowing this facility, asking how to re-energize people to stop seeing the facility as the “church” and grow relationships in their own neighborhoods. We have a very successful and attractional “come” strategy (where people come to our building), so we don’t see us just quitting that; however, we are working hard to develop an even stronger “go” strategy and decentralizing much of what we do.
If the building were to burn today? I think we’d rebuild, but we would totally change the structure of the space and build in more spaces for families to engage “church” together, foster more small group environments, and provide more resources for people to “do church” in their own homes. I think our leadership team would step up to the challenge quickly and almost see it as a huge opportunity more than a disaster. Our goal is to shift people’s thinking that they need the organization to do for them what they can do for themselves in terms of reaching out in their community and leading people to an encounter with Christ.
Wes April 1, 2013 (9:32 pm)
The church I attend now is a chapel on the campus of a military prep school. It’s main purpose is to service the students at the school, and it’s only the “civilian” attenders who are doing much “programming” outside of campus.
If the chapel burned down, this fellowship would probably go on unhindered, because they would just move into a different school space. While the chapel is beautiful, I think the body fellowship is very loosely attached to the building, and just use it out of convenience/proximity/size. (And the school would probably have enough funds to rebuild.) Programs would probably continued unhindered whatsoever. But I think this congregation would have trouble without a large, centralized building.
The church I attended before this one just moved from their decrepit building to a brand new one they built, across town. Townies can no longer walk there, but it’s on the cusp of a Habitat for Humanity development (which they are involved with), and they have a loyal and well established body. Should this (new) building burn down, I think they would rent a hotel or school somewhere, and the most interrupted programs would be for kids/youth–to not have a place to gather.
The church I went to before that was a mega-church in FL, and they are plunking themselves down right in the middle of areas that need it–renovating Dillards stores and renting out/setting up/taking down a theatre space in the heart of a tourist-destination/night-life center. If their (main) building were to burn down, I don’t think it would affect the regular attenders–they’d work around it somehow–but many of the newcomers might not be able to get in so easily–since being able to be “anonymous in a crowd” is one of the appeals for seekers. But, since they are currently renovating a Dillards store, I’m sure they’d survive to do that to another building. Perhaps that’s one of the advantages of them having multiple campuses–if one burned down, the others could accept the spillover.
Children’s ministries, however, I think would be disrupted, because it’s about half the church area, outside of the sanctuary/auditorium. And perhaps one of the draws for the parents is being able to have their kids be taken care of for a little while.
I know it’s a hypothetical situation, but with all three of these churches, I don’t really see them NOT rebuilding. And, as I recently pushed back on my Chaplain about home-church vs. mega-church: We have such a temptation to want to set up a “system”, when, in fact, what we ought to be doing is simply following the Spirit, and doing what God tells us to do–whether that’s to rebuild, go “home-style”, or go mega.
wes April 1, 2013 (9:34 pm)
In paragraph 2, it’s supposed to read: But I think this congregation would NOT have trouble without a large, centralized building.
amy clifford April 1, 2013 (11:25 pm)
As part of a mission development in Denver, we don’t have a building and don’t have plans for one. With a small-ish church with limited income, not having to worry about a brick and mortar structure frees us up. We meed in the parish hall of a local Episcopal church and it fits our community really well. We have a great relationship with our host parish; which is a huge bonus.
Not being tied to a building means we do church all over the city – meeting in different coffee shops for meetings and pastor “office hours”, book and supper clubs meet in peoples’ homes, Beer & Hymns happens in the basement of a bar, one time we hosted a fall carnival (complete with a bouncy house shaped like a church) on the one Sunday of the year we couldn’t use our normal space.
Why did we have all of our Holy Week services at 8pm? To accomodate the services of the folks who so graciously share their space with us. Does it sometimes force us to be nimble and thing outside the box? Probably so. Would I want to have it any other way? Probably not.
Sarah April 2, 2013 (8:07 am)
@Eric, you’re right. You’ve captured the challenge well. Buildings help so much for legitimacy as well as practical reasons, but we also have to then overcome how they sometimes creep into too central of a place in our identity.
@Wes, thanks for sharing how community happens in the contexts you’ve been part of. I’m glad you mentioned how location impacts the closest, walking community too.
@Amy, love the last bit of what you said. “Does it sometimes force us to be nimble and think outside the box? Probably so. Would I want to have it any other way? Probably not.” There can be freedom in not being tied to a building as well.
Cammie April 2, 2013 (10:20 am)
After reading all the replies, my context is definitely in the minority. We are a church of over 100 years with a diverse group of people. We have a very traditional older contingent and then everyone else. Our traditional attenders would be devastated and would not want to wait an entire year without a building, and when we did rebuild they would want a very traditional space. I think the rest of the body would be okay and then a few who would be encouraged and energized by the idea of waiting a year.
Our facility has become a community space for the Vandercook area and I think if something were to happen to our building, the community would miss the physical presence of JFM in a building. Do I think we could sustain the ministry we do currently elsewhere? Absolutely. Not sure if it would be sustainable in our context though.
We have dreamed of what an ideal space would be and I think the major change would be more open space for community and hanging out.
Great opening question…
Josh April 2, 2013 (10:46 am)
Hi Sarah.
In my current context, pastoring in a six year old church plant, we carry out most of our ministry without a building proper. We gather for worship on Sunday mornings at a local middle school which serves our needs very well at the moment. The simplicity of our gatherings and our ministries was tested this past summer when a sprinkler burst at the middle school causing tens of thousands of dollars worth of damage over night. The “Great Flood of 2012” as it became known forced the state fire marshall to shut the school down until all the repairs were complete. This decision forced us out of our worship space for nearly two months. Though this was a major inconvenience for us, the church rallied like I’d never seen her rally before and we moved all of our “stuff” out and into a temporary location provided by the school district. What impressed me the most was how much many folks in our church loved the “new” (yet temporary) location even though it was less aesthetically pleasing and required more set-up and tear-down than our regular location. There’s something about our interpretation of crises that has the potential to bring out the very best in people.
As a church plant with a little money in the bank, we dream of a building as a ministry hub available to the community most all (if not all days of the week). We dream of a simple worship gathering space with coffee house and laundromat and teen recreation center or something that would be of value to the community and to help meet needs within our city.
Previous to my current role, I was an intern at a church in Allendale, MI, that intentionally sold its historic church to a funeral home with the hopes of building a new facility on a piece of property the church owned for several years. After a period of discernment, the elders of the church decided not to build in the new location but to sell the property and worship at the local high school auditorium. They did this for two year and during this transitional time, they renamed the church and gave it a fresh mission and vision. The church ended up purchasing the old Allendale Middle School and renovating it. They have more space than they will ever need and have had many offers from different organizations to lease space from them – which they have done to an extent. What I love about this church is that even though we do not know what happened behind closed doors – in public the elders of the church clearly communicated and demonstrated unity in their decision making process. This, I believe, fueled congregational support and determination to move forward with not building on the first piece of property; and second, purchasing an old school building and giving it new life and a new purpose.
Benji April 2, 2013 (12:18 pm)
This would be a very interesting situation for the church I am part of now. We are only 12 years removed from meeting weekly in a school, so I would love to think we would be able to make the transition back to being in a portable space.However we have grown by about 3,000 since those days, so making this transition would not be easy.
I think the thing that keeps lingering in my mind about this scenario is that in the Las Vegas church culture, churches that don’t have a permanent location are viewed as “unstable” and attendance plateaus. One church sold their building and moved into a school and attendance dropped by over 30%, I would have to think this would happen to most churches that had a building and moved to a portable environment. I am assuming that the 30% that stopped attending were inconsistent attenders, but those are the people I would hope our church would be reaching.
Sarah April 2, 2013 (2:44 pm)
@cammie How great that the community uses your facility enough that they would miss your physical space if it was no longer available…
@Josh, that’s an interesting case study. So now the building could potentially become home to other community services in addition to the church’s programs… I’ll have to keep an eye out to see how their story unfolds.
@Benji Agreed. Even in Michigan, churches achieve “legitimacy” in the eyes of the community by moving into a permanent location, but I’m trying to decide…do we get more attached to the building to reinforce the perception that legitimacy equals building? Or do we have to become less attached to it to develop stronger expressions of churches that show it is the gathering of people…?
Vicki Hanes April 2, 2013 (4:00 pm)
Our church has a building but they repurposed it as an outdoor preschool and nursery center. Therefore, we don’t really have many programs that run in the actual building. We also rent it out to other churches. We rent out a high school theater for Sunday service. As a result, we have been very intentional in reaching out to the school community and have done many projects around the school. We also held a “tissue” drive to supply teachers with boxes of tissues for their classrooms. We are working with some of the students in the performing arts department and have provided them pizza when they have had to clean up or rearrange their sets to make room for us.
All our small groups meet in homes and our youth group meets in the building occasionally but most of the time they are at the Student Ministries Director’s house or at places around in the community for adventures. Because the pre-school can be pretty loud, the staff work from home sometimes although they have offices in the building
Therefore, I’m not sure it would be a very big adjustment for us as we are used to a portable church.
I think if we were to rebuild, based upon past practice, we are most likely to create a “community center” where we hold services on Sundays but would be a place for other community projects/programs that are not necessarily church related–tutorial center, after-school programs, etc.
They considered doing that with the present building and adding on but to get the permits to do so in nearly impossible and very expensive in our community.
Sarah April 2, 2013 (9:00 pm)
@Vicki I love the community center approach for a church like yours, though it sounds like you’re functioning as one already!
Doug Bradshaw April 3, 2013 (10:54 am)
I lead a church that has a large faciility and I would rebuild as soon as I could. I say this with the full understanding that the facility is not the church. At WFMC our vision is “to be an attractive community where life change happens.” In my 15 years here as lead pastor I have seen countless times where the facility we have has enabled us to carry out our vision. We have held memorial services for persons who had no church of their own. Our local high school has used our building for testing. The Boy scouts and Girl scouts use our building on a regular basis. We have a home school group that uses our facility every week. We open our facility to weddings of community members who do not have a church or need a larger facility. I see the facility we have as a great asset to reaching our community for Christ.
There is no doubt that the circumstances that would surround not haveing a building would pose some great questions. I would say that I would love to rebuild knowing what I know now. I would use the facility to allow the church to serve the community more. However, for now I continue to thank God that He has given us a facility that furthers His work in our community.
Teresa B Pasquale April 3, 2013 (8:50 pm)
As coordinator for young adult (18-40s) programming at my church and the contemplative/mystic dimension; I am living in an experience of what I like to call “micro-church” and kind of like those Russian nesting dolls my ministries are kind of like church within church. While we are part of a larger entity many of the people who come to my worship service and related programming have no connection with my church besides their Sunday evenings with me and not even any connection with the Episcopal tradition.
In many ways I find myself living in the spaces between–like a bridge between elements–and that space often feels very “place-less.”
There is as much fright as there is freedom in sitting in such a precarious position; but in the space of that kind of place-less uncertainty is room for deep intimacy and creative experimentation which has been personally and (I hope) communally fruitful.
I think when we are place-less we are forced to define church in a way that has no walls and this conception of church may be breaking all we previously knew about what church means (which is scary but also provides an adventurous opportunity). In that limbo we can see church more as the people than the steeple.
For me it has been rich, but also uncertain. I see an intimacy created in this kind of space but (as mentioned in the question) it totally redefines how you sustain programs and ministries. You can collaborate with existing programs in established spaces (which leaves space for building larger communities–nesting dolls in nesting dolls) and the potential to try something new that the original structure didn’t have time, space or inclination to try.
What a great first question. It really helps me to conceptualize and define the space I am in (and my ministry is in) and examine deeply the benefits and struggle. This is even more helpful as I am giving two presentations on just these things in the next month!
Thanks! Teresa
Carrie April 4, 2013 (10:36 am)
As a children’s pastor over 90% of my ministry takes place in a building. Yet thinking about doing all of my ministry outside of the comfort zone (both literally and figuratively)sheds new light on what it means to be in the community.
My church is very traditional so a decision not to rebuild would be shocking to the majority. I think those in their 40s and younger would be excited about the possibility of being among a completely different group of people.
If the “destroyer” was of a natural occurance then the immediate cocern would be the others who lost homes, business, etc in this. My hope would be that my congregation would be more motivated to help those in a bigger need than we; a home is should be of more value than a church building. After all the church should be among the people.
After the year was over I think people would realize how unimportant brick are when trying to build relationships. And what would it look like if in rebuilding the physical community, spiritual community was born out of that?
Maybe more questions than answers… but that’s what some of this is all about?
Peace,
Carrie
Sarah April 4, 2013 (2:58 pm)
@Doug, that’s great you’ve become confident in using your building to serve your larger existence as church. Good for you! Feel free to get in touch if you’d like to write a post about it.
@Teresa, I love what you said about being place-less and I think I spend my whole lives, more or less, in those in-between places. :)
@Carrie, glad that your eyes would move to the community first… that’s a great instinct.
Krista April 4, 2013 (3:32 pm)
My first feeling after reading this was “YES!!! FREEDOM!!” partially because I personally enjoy change and flying by the seat of my pants, but also because this scenario would remove so many obstacles that we currently face in the church building context.
Without a building, people would have no choice but to either leave and start attending another church, or begin taking me up on the leadership, small group leader trainings we have been trying to encourage people to be a part of.
Without a building, it becomes freedom to experiment, and freedom to fail.
Without a building, we no longer have to complain about the decor in a traditional church, the organ, the pews, the loud music, the flashing lights, the “we’ve always done it this way” traditions.. It would be a completely new slate.
Honestly though, while difficult, virtually all of our current ministries could be carried out, they would just have to change to homes or restaurants. Many of the people in the church would freak out about the decision, but there are a precious group that would embrace it and love the challenge of it.
The building would likely be rebuilt to have multiple uses… Gone would be the days of “this is the sanctuary only” style of buildings, but instead would be “this is where we meet on Sunday morning, and play basketball on Saturday.” style.
I would love this…
~K
Rick Nier April 5, 2013 (7:12 pm)
Sarah,
I really like this exercise. Let me begin with the easiest question first. Our church would throw a fit if we didn’t rebuild the entire church brick for brick. They see the history of the building as part of the current ministry.
I, on the other hand, would love this kind of an opportunity. I think many of our ministries could continue, but obviously in a drastically changed context. I could see children’s ministries happening either in schools or at parks. Youth ministries would move to living rooms, much like any adult small groups.
I think this would be a positive thing overall, as it would force people to become involved or watch as ministry decreases. Our building was totally finished, with additions, way back in the 70’s. It is not cost-efficient nor does it have a great set-up. A new building, after a year, would be built with much more thought to children’s areas as well as a bent toward technology being used in our sanctuary.
I’m not saying I know how to start a fire, but at least now I have some thought into how to handle the changes that would come. :)
Rik Hilborn April 5, 2013 (7:18 pm)
Wow I can’t say much that hasn’t been said already. Wes and Eric pretty much sum it up. I have found while being a part of a church with and without a building even a nomadic church I attempted to start, I see there being challenges and opportunities to all. Mainly keeping in mind that your Community (Town/City not Congregation) should feel a loss if your church were to cease to exists (Congregation not just Building), with that said we should hope everything we have can be used for God’s work within our Community (again Town/City not Congregation). You may be able to serve best with or without a building and it may be best to proceed asking that question!
Jimmy Proulx April 6, 2013 (1:23 am)
Sarah,
If a church’s building burned down and they decided not to rebuild, this could present itself as an opportunity for innovation and creativity.
A church is able to give more, serve more, and do more when they are not paying off a loan.
Instead of rebuilding, they could try to find a building in the community that has not been used for some time and repurpose it as a church building. The church might think about meeting in other types of locations as well.
The church might consider schools, the chapel of a funeral home, a bar, a movie theater, or even sharing the building of another church.
Even if the church had to meet in homes for awhile, they could stream their service live with Google hangouts or YouTube.
Innovation and creativity have always been a part of the church. Today should not be any different.
Rachel April 6, 2013 (1:45 pm)
I think my church would like to think that this would be a simple transition; however, I believe that in reality many people in the congregation would feel betrayed by this decision. It is easy to claim that you have a church that serves the community outside of it’s walls, but it isn’t until a disaster like this that really pushes you to the limit. It is much more comfortable to serve the community from the comfort of your own office, pew, or sanctuary. It is much more difficult when you have to exist and thrive creatively on a different turf. Although this would be a difficult transition at first, I believe that my church would greatly benefit from doing a year of church building-less. I think that once the structure is rebuilt, it would exist to serve the community more practically. It would offer different spaces for young people, small children, and adults with various interests. It would create a space for people to come and not simply hear a message, but to live in true community together in practical, every day ways.
Nate April 7, 2013 (7:05 am)
When our church started, we began with the desired ethos of being a missional, multiplying church. While the entirety of our Sunday gatherings require a pretty robust facility, the lifeblood of our church rests in missional communities that exist in areas all over our region.
I think those that are involved in our missional communities would take the news rather well. I envision them unleashed to do some amazing work in the community (which they already are). Those who aren’t would probably balk at losing the attractional portion of our church.
It would be fascinating to see how we evolve though.
Amy Jones April 7, 2013 (11:19 pm)
My current context is a large (probably classified as a mega church)church located in a part of Fort Wayne, Indiana that has been written off by the city. It is a multi-cultural, multi-racial, multi-generational, and multi-economic church that places high value on missional living. I believe in some ways our church would be okay with the loss of the building because they would quickly find a location to rent or multiple structures to meet at (with possible simulcast of service), so the Body could gather together. We have a solid structure of small groups meeting in homes on a regular basis and this is where we find real community begins. Non-believers, especially, are more willing to come to a home when invited by a friend than a church building. I do feel one of our struggles might be potentially losing some of the diversity we have in our congregation, but I could be wrong about this.
The programs that would be most effected would be Awana,Upward Basketball, and Mending Nets (our Celebrate Recovery weekly group) besides Sunday services. The youth already meet often in peoples homes. In the warmer months, we could have services outside on the property or got into some of the impoverished or refugee neighborhoods where we already are involved in outreach or missional living. Our church is actively involved in serving the community through neighborhood projects, partnering with local social service agencies, holding clothing resales, and much more. I could see more of this type of service or community life happening.
I don’t know that this would change the plans for a new building much. Fellowship Missionary Church has always built debt free and each building has multi-purpose. Things are simple, but current. FMC will continue to remain committed to discipleship, reaching the community locally and around the work, missional living, and living as the Body of Christ, loving and showing each other grace.
Amy Jones April 7, 2013 (11:21 pm)
I was contemplating about the children. I think FMC values having them as part of our service and worship, but sometimes they also need teaching on their level. This would be the most difficult piece without a building.
Melinda April 7, 2013 (11:50 pm)
My church currently does not have a building. We rent two spaces. On Sunday mornings we meet at a highschool autorium & any activities that need “church space” after that is a rented space we call “the hub”. We are in a newer church plant so that is part of the reason for how we operate. Although in our area most of the schools are being occupied by churches on Sunday mornings. So this is not uncommon for our area as churches grow & then eventually build or buy. So to answer the question about functioning without a “building”. Yes, we could do that even if the rented buildings burnt down. We would just find another place to rent.
I actually love this idea of seeing how you grow as a church over a years period of time before building. I think I will mention this to our Pastor as we begin the thought process of building a church. It puts a whole different angle to it…an excitement to it that I never thought of! Kinda reminds me of the book “In His Steps” & how they grew & experienced God as they committed to making their personal decisions to situations based on what Jesus would do!
I imagine our future church building to be simple, clean… not showey. One that is comfortable & not too fancy. It isn’t a place to show off, but one that shows changed lives of the ones who come both now & the future.
We are about going out to the community we live & work in. One thing we do when we pray at church is get in a circle & hold hands of the people next to us. A normal group would face each other in this circle, but not us! We all face out! We face out to our community & the people out there we can help lead to God’s kingdom! When we are done praying our feet are headed in the right direction to go & be fishers of men!
This is why I think, after a years period our church building would be as I described above!
I hope this helps!
Sarah April 8, 2013 (11:20 am)
@Krista I get why you say that. Buildings are useful and they become homes to families of churched people…but it can be freeing to think outside of bricks and mortar.
@rick nier I tend to think a lot of churches would find something good in this event, as you suggest you would. That they’d look back and appreciate a bold reason to reinvent even if they wouldn’t have opted for a loss of building themselves. Wondering how we can prompt ourselves to examine our ministry models short of fires and tornadoes? =)
@rik Yes. The exercise for me is a thinking exercise. It doesn’t hope to suggest that churches should or should not use buildings, but just asks us to keep thinking about how we live our faith in ways that transcend buildings…whether we have one or not.
@Jimmy I liked your thoughts on repurposing other buildings…
@Rachel I appreciated your honesty. You’re right. Philosophically, we all realize–at least on paper–that the church is not the building, but our models sometimes become a little bit lazy overtime and we might find a reinvention more difficult than we’d expect.
@Nate I’d love to hear more on de-centralizing church via these missional communities
@Amy thanks for the specifics. That helps. It sounds like some of the arms of your church, which are already not tied to the building, would perhaps become the strongest in the event a building would be lost.
@Melinda You are at a really exciting stage as you think about a new building. What a great chance to think carefully about how the church functions in and outside of its facilities. Thanks for sharing.
Don't Miss Comments - What Visitors Are Talking About This Week April 8, 2013 (11:37 am)
[…] We’re ankle deep in a series on Portable Faith, based on a new book about how to take your church to the community, which has sparked an interesting discussion as church leaders reflect on what they’d do if their building went up in flames. That’s the scenario posed in this post. What about you? Would you find, inside the tragedy, an awesome chance to reinvent? Read the comments and add your thoughts here. […]
Community Stations: An Idea for Focusing on the People Who Share Your Community April 8, 2013 (12:26 pm)
[…] a commenter on last week’s Portable Faith post, reminded me of […]
Colleen July 7, 2014 (10:51 pm)
I’m not that much of a internet reader to be honest but your sites really nice, keep it
up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your site to come back down the
road. Cheers
http://kidfriendlydc.com/ July 9, 2014 (6:13 am)
At this time it seems like WordPress is the best blogging platform available right
now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?
Carmike Jefferson Pointe 18 IMAX Fort Wayne July 11, 2014 (2:45 am)
Dang, thanks so much for posting this! It is gonna help when I am thinking about going to Carmike Jefferson Pointe 18 IMAX in Fort Wayne! I am from Syracuse so I am not familiar with Fort Wayne. Next time I see my family will be so much better! Super Cool!
Michal August 28, 2014 (11:58 pm)
WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching
for corporate wedding cooking personalized teddy bear gifts customized