Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Church Planting or Church Revitalization

Church planting has been a hot topic the last few years in North America. But some leaders in existing churches are starting to push back, suggesting that church revitalization would be more productive than church planting. Having been involved in both church planting and church revitalization, I can see the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The advantage of revitalizing an existing church instead of starting a new one is that it already has the land, the building and the people. New church plants often expend incredible amounts of money, time and energy finding land and building a new building, or finding an existing commercial building and converting it into a church. Some would argue that this money and energy might be better expended on helping an existing church modernize and rehab their building. New churches also must spend an incredible amount of time and energy gathering a core group, training the core group and then using that core group as a base to reach out to the lost and de-churched to bring them into the fellowship. Finding that first 40-50 people is the hardest. An existing church already has that core group and if they could be trained and deployed to be on mission, then it would seem to many that such an approach would make more sense than starting a new church from nothing.

The disadvantage of revitalizing an existing church is that it already has the land, the building and the people. Yes, you read that correctly. The advantages that an existing church has are often also its greatest disadvantages. For example, if the location the existing church is located in is no longer workable but the building is also not very marketable for resale and relocation, then the land and location become a liability instead of an asset. Many rural churches were built in places that once were surrounded by farms with large families. Now the farms are run by one or two man crews with big equipment, the families have all moved away to the nearby town and the old home church is in the middle of nowhere. It is nearly impossible to sell, so relocation to a better spot is not really viable. Even though the old home church is struggling, its location makes it impossible to reach the children and grandchildren of its members. A new church will need to be built closer to the population. The same is true in urban areas. Perhaps a church was built in a neighborhood where people walked to church. No parking lot was needed. Now the homes are gone and businesses own all the land around the church. People have to drive their car to church and need a place to park. If a small church does not have the funds to buy an expensive piece of business property next door to turn into a parking lot, suddenly the location is a hindrance instead of a blessing.

Sometimes it is not the location that is the problem, but the building itself. It could be a building in a rural area or right in the midst of an urban center, but if the building is in such bad condition that it is cost prohibitive to repair and is worth so little that it cannot be sold for enough make relocation a viable option, then the building becomes a weight pulling the church down instead of a tool for community outreach. Often the remaining members love their old building and keep meeting in it despite all the code violations and leaky roofs and non-functioning bathrooms. But visitors are not going to come to such a place, at least not for a second visit. In such situations a new church must be started to reach that very same area that the old church once impacted.

But perhaps the most challenging aspect of revitalizing an existing church is the people. More important than location and buildings are the people that make up the church. In fact, it is the people that ARE the church, not the building or the location. If a church building has slowly fallen into disrepair, it was the people who let it happen. If the church failed to relocate 20 years ago when it still possible, or buy adjoining property when it was available, it was the people who made that choice. If the congregation is no longer a viable part of the community, it is because the people have chosen to focus inward instead of outward.
While it would be nice to think that if we sent a young energetic preacher there with some innovative ideas that the people would have a change of heart and the church would turn around, that seldom happens. In fact, many declining churches have tried that a time or two, and often fired the young preacher when he pushed the envelope too far, even though they hired him to do just that. In discussing this issue with other pastors, I am reminded of what Joe Paskevich, pastor of Calvary Chapel of Eastern Connecticut, said; “Many times those wanting revitalization simply want more resources (people, money, remodeled facilities) to perpetuate what they have always had. For revitalization to happen there will need to be a transition which would include things that will ultimately make the revitalized church look and feel like a church plant anyway.” Bible teaching and author Jeanette Sullivan says, “The hardest part of revitalization is the BIG word...CHANGE! Unless people are willing to change what they have been doing for 30, 40, 50 or more years, then it can't happen.” Sadly, most people are just not willing to change, and therefore, revitalization often becomes impossible. Sometimes a new church is what the community needs, even though several churches already exist in the same community. It can be a hard truth to accept, but it is a truth nonetheless.

13 comments:

  1. "But perhaps the most challenging aspect of revitalizing an existing church is the people." BINGO ----- John Mark Clifton here in KC has taken to calling these revitalization's "Legacy Church Planting" - JM has gone in and meets with the generally dying congregations, and gives them a bit of a test/survey to see where they are at basically in their spiritual death to self, in their hope to restart. Once he's checked the heart temperature of the church by spending a little time with them, and going through these survey's he's better able to assess whether they are ready for a "Legacy Church Planter" to come in.... basically they must finally have an open hand, and be willing to do "Whatever it takes" to see new life back in the church. It's not a perfect process but he has successfully replanted churches and has been a great help to many in replanting around the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was very fortunate to be able to sit and talk with Terry last year while he was in Oregon. I think we covered just about everything in this article. Approaching the subject from a rural /small town perspective(less than 2000) three more items can be added to the list. 1) Why did we plant a church in a town that did not want one? Even Paul understood the futility of this and had enough discernment to move on. 2) Has the reputation of the church been so tarnished by whatever reason, in fighting, pastor terminations, or some other scandal, as to make reconciliation in the town impossible. 3) Community life in a rural area/small town is very important, and yet we often have separatist churches in these areas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, your article is very intersting, indeed. But one critical aspect concerning church revitalization regards the health of the existing church that needs to be revitalized. I learned this the hard way after graduating from seminary last year. I could go into great detail about my experience. But, the long and short of my experience is that you cannot revitalize and grow a dysfunctional church that is not willing to confront the spiritual issues of sin which creates conflict and disunity within the body. As a pastor-shepherd, I learned that sometimes sheep bite (and that's an understatement!). It's unfortunate, but in situations such as this, sometimes the best situation is to allow the church to die and replant a new church that does not have the reputation and dysfunction sown into it's DNA.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very true James. Very true. I have had a similar experience, which is one of the reasons I am now in church planting.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Like you, I can see the pros and cons of both sides of the issue between planting and revitalization. I've planted churches, which is fun. But the need for revitalizing the health of the church is of great concern for me. Any church can refurbish its facilities and/or relocate. But the first step to revitalization happens when a church is willing to examine themselves before the Lord and follow through in a process of repentance and reconciliation. I've seen it happen before. I just wish it happened more often.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good points, Terry. Another aspect that I see is that the present pastor does not or cannot leave, so the leadership that has supervised or led the decline remains. The leadership style or personalities are the primary issue in these situations. I have a pastor who has specifically said, "Why doesn't the NAMB or our state convention send in 50 people for six months to a year to help us revitalize? That's what we need." The problem with that is that his personality and leadership style (I think) is the primary obstacle to the church growing, although not the only problem. If 50 people were sent in, within a year, the church (again I think) would be right back where it is now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Jason and Richard. Those are both great thoughts to add to the discussion. I think under the right conditions, church revitalization is great. Sadly, those right conditions exists only in rare situations.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Russell,
    I fondly remember our lunch together. I wish so many miles did not separate us, or we would have those lunches more often!

    Terry

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is an excellent thread of comments on a very emotional issue for many of God's people. Just a couple of questions for us all to consider. Is it scriptural to let a struggling church die? Does a Shepherd allow a flock of sheep to remain lost or in danger? What is the biblical model of the Shepherd/Sheep relationship? Did Jesus put a high value on lost sheep?
    I guess you can see where I am going with these questions. I do not mean to be contentious, I just want us all to seriously consider the implications of the thought process of letting a church die rather than loving it back to life.
    I fully understand the "people challenge" that exists in many struggling churches. I understand the resistance to change and the reluctance to confess sin so that healing can take place. But this is one of the many tasks that a Shepherd is called to do. It is not an easy calling, it is filled with heartache and many struggles, but it is worth it.
    Yes, I agree, that sometimes, in spite of all the effort and loving encouragement, biblical council, and prayer, a struggling church will still fail. But I am convinced that most of the time this is do to a lack of understanding, or a lack of resolve on the part of the leadership to carry out the necessary biblical steps to bring about the needed changes for the church to thrive.
    Recently I have become involved with the Intentional Interim Ministry Network. In a nutshell, this organization provides referrals of trained pastors who are willing and able to walk a struggling church through a biblical process of healing, strengthening, vision and mission setting, and ultimately the calling of a new pastor well fitted to the demographics of the area and the church at large. The New England point person for this program is: Dr. Rafael Hernandez, Executive Director, Southeastern New England Baptist Association, 774.573.0710 (C)
    401.737.1009 (O)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Well, I just can't be quite on this one . . . I think if God Calls you to be a Church Planter, then you need to address that call; and the same goes for Church Revitalization. My issue would be those that make that determination should be willing work with either "New or Existing". Why completely leave either out. I can tell you from my experience, my conclusion is that we need both and neither is easy. Many times leadership is guilty of asking people to listen to them rather than asking them to do something. Let me be completely clear with this, I point no fingers, just that I believe that both are important and both have issues. Some people have talents that others do not, so some may be more useful in a new church plant and some may be better suited to work with Church Revitalization. Either way, if there is an issue, experience is hard to replace. One thing that's sure, we do need Revitalization in our churches. We losing the concept that this country was given to us by God to Worship Freely and it's not lost people that is the problem, it's sleeping Christians that think they are doing ministry by giving a few dollars for someone else to tell the good news. Usually when I'm asked, what is the problem here, I respond as kindly as possible, if you have a problem and looking around, you don't know exactly what it is, it's probably you. My hat is off to Church Planting and Church Revitalization. Imagine it asked us to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, till all the Sleeping Christians died off, then start new works. As Terry often says, do whatever it takes and lets just do the job.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for sharing Gary. Yes, we need both. And yes, some point are wired for one and some for the other. I actually meant to have a follow up blog about that subject the next day. But I got busy and have not finished it yet. But stay tuned . . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. The issues here are many and varied. Now that I've stated that cop-out... God appears to be in the process of raising up thousands and thousands of pastors, planters, and other followers of Jesus who are feeling a specialized call. For example, some are planters, some are revitalizers, some are still something else. Let me try to address that "something else". I'm hearing a lot about planters and a lot about revitalizers, but what I'm hearing seems to have in common the concept of trying to make a quick decision about which one is needed, and take quick action accordingly. I have no criticism for this; it's just what the doctor ordered in many situations. BUT, I believe, there are situations in which it is not what the doctor ordered, rather there needs to be someone who can walk alongside the struggling, even dying church who finds it hard/impossible to change. I have a church in my association that's been dead as a doornail for 30 years. Just when its primary layleader and I were about to take the action of urging the church to close and give its building for a new church plant, the Lord presented another idea, brought in a new pastor with a heart for Him, and there's been a pulse. The jury's still out. My point is, God still has, and is calling more, some of us to be whatever this kind of shepherd/friend/minister should be called. This isn't a threat to planting nor revitalization, because God is in a "calling more and more to step up to the plate" mode, as the Day of His return is drawing near. For more along this line, please see www.bivosmallchurch.net . I write a pitiful article there, from time to time, on this kind of stuff, under "DOMs". Excited to see how the Lord is bringing all this together, in a bigger way than in my 30 years of SBC experience before!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Kenny,
    Thanks for sharing. I'm thankful for your ministry and for all Directors of Missions across the SBC.

    ReplyDelete