Too Many Churches???????

[T-Rex91]

Do you think that there can be too many churches? Let's face it, it takes money to run a church. I look around at my Mom's and grandmother's churches that are struggling for survival as their congregations age and pass and the proliferation of other small churches who are constantly in need of assistance. I was at charge conference and the conversation turned to the number of new churches that the UMC planned to start the coming year. It was staggering.

Do we need more churches or do we need to try and reinfuse existing/dying churches with new members or is there another option? Couldn't we do more collectively than we can separately?

[No Screen Name]

This is an EXCELLENT post. My mom JUST said this, and it's something that's kind of been in the back of my mind. My mom said she gets mad every time she sees a new church. She said we have TONS of churches that are empty, and people need to fill those in before starting new ones. In our city, new congregations pop up all the time. They generally start out meeting in small school gymnasiums, hotel ballrooms or office auditoriums.

I think part of the problem is that "church" is changing. My church--AME--is fairly empty. People are not into existing denominations or order of service anymore. They want praise and worship, drums, bass, and keyboard, not an organ or some dry hymns.

Nearly EVERYONE in my age range that still lives in my city has left and gone to this really popular megachurch (the 25-40 age range). I counted 15 folks that have left to go to this church, and only about 5 who have stayed. It becomes really plain to me whenever there is a church cookout or dinner--I have NO ONE to talk to! It's either kids or 40 and over folks.

But ultimately in terms of acting within the denomination, yes, I agree. In your example, the UMC should NOT build new churches (unless it is in an area that is currently not being served by a UMC church) and should look at moving pastors or somehow reviving the existing congregation.

[Cambist]

While in college (undergrad) I performed an unscientific survey of churches in the Pine Bluff MSA and turned up that there were HUNDREDS of BLACK churches in that 3-4 county, rural area. If i'm not mistaken, the number of registered and unregistered churches was around 700!!

Do we have too many churches? Let me not make a judgement as to how many churches are too many. What I will say is that in a town of 20,000 you have 7,000 churchgoers and 125 churches then the churches can not maximize their effectiveness. Some churches will have 500 members and some will have 6.

When your pastor has 17 associate pastors and they do all of the weddings, funerals, counseling etc....(well, all except the "important" people) then your church might be too large.

I'm going to find me a small country church house somewhere and start holding service every Sunday with a different guest pastor. I'll send out flyers like on Facebook announcing my Sunday event. Small....intimate....HELL, maybe even a social afterwards. This will be for those ADHD folks like me.

[Highly Favored]

Good questions. I don't really think there is an easy answer, though. I think the answers depend on a lot of things.

Too many, IDK. Ideally, a man or woman of God would open a church because they believed that God sent them to an area to establish a work for Him. If God sent you, there can be 100 other churches in the area, you can't let that hinder you. God's ways are not ours.

However, realistically, not everyone that starts a church has really heard from God. They see the glamour of it all, but not the sacrifice that is required. I think these ministries are eventually weeded out anyway, so they are not really an issue.

My church's organization is relatively new and small compared to a lot of other organizations/denominations. The organization has an interest in growing and expanding into areas that are not already served by churches in the organization. Though it sometimes happens, the organization is not particularly interested in having more than one church in a city. So, in that sense, I agree with Z. My organization encourages people moving into an area to support the church in the organization that has already been established rather than starting something new in that city. So, as it relates to reinfusing existing churches, I think an organization should endeavor to reinfuse dying churches in its own organization rather than establishing a new church within the organization. Sometimes, however, depending on the dynamics, that might not be possible.

It would seem that we could do more collectively than separately, but not if we are not of the same mind and accord. And, frankly, that is what the number of churches is all about. Everyone doesn't want the same thing in their worship experience. Everyone doesn't believe the same thing when it comes to the everyday details of how church is to be conducted. In some cases, only subtle differences separate one organization's church from another, but it is enough to hinder the progress of the body. In that sense, we are better offer apart than together.

Sometimes, I think there are not enough churches. How can we ever get too much of something whose mission is so good, when so much evil is present in the world? I also find it interesting that the church is the only entity for which I consistently hear this observation. We can build as many other things (restaurants, stores, etc.) in close proximity to each other and people are happy to have another choice. Why can't it be that way with church?

[kingdelta]

I love your summation HF. I guess the question would be do we have too many churches that are not effective.

[Highly Favored]

Sept 29, 2009 13:05:05 GMT -5 kingdelta said:

I love your summation HF. I guess the question would be do we have too many churches that are not effective.

Now effectiveness is a different story altogether. And, really it is hard to measure in some instances.

Some may look at our small congregation and, based on their observations, they might not consider us effective. Sometimes, effectiveness doesn't always equate to large numbers and a lot of fanfare. Sometimes, God places us where we can reach those who won't otherwise be reached with the gospel. He values one soul as much as He does 99.

And God has his own time within which He works. Just as His ways aren't ours, His timing is not always ours. My mentor's church was very small and kept a relatively low profile for many years. Her pastor (also her husband) remained faithful to the task to which he has been entrusted for the past 20 years. It wasn't until about two years ago that the ministry experienced any significant growth. All of a sudden, they began to grow by leaps and bounds. They cannot really pinpoint what they did that was so different when they began to grow. It was just God's time to send increase. They just built a new sanctuary and they have already outgrown it.

I pass about 20 churches between my house and their church, all of which are older, more established churches. They aren't growing as much right now, but they are not, as far as I can tell, dying either. The truth is, if more people who need to be in church would go, just sometimes, all of the churches would be filled. One thing we have learned about the community where our church is located is that, in spite of several churches being present, people are still choosing not to go to church. I don't know what the other churches have done or are planning to do, but, as far as I am concerned, that is an opportunity for outreach. Maybe we can offer something that the others have not been able to offer. Maybe not.

Of course, everyone is not going to come to our church. Some may continue to choose not to go to church at all. But I believe God sent us there for a purpose. It's up to us to do what God has commissioned us to do and leave the results to Him.

Sorry for such long posts. The church is one of my greatest passions.

[Julie Art]

Sept 29, 2009 10:57:44 GMT -5 Highly Favored said:

Good questions. I don't really think there is an easy answer, though. I think the answers depend on a lot of things.

Too many, IDK. Ideally, a man or woman of God would open a church because they believed that God sent them to an area to establish a work for Him. If God sent you, there can be 100 other churches in the area, you can't let that hinder you. God's ways are not ours.

However, realistically, not everyone that starts a church has really heard from God. They see the glamour of it all, but not the sacrifice that is required. I think these ministries are eventually weeded out anyway, so they are not really an issue.

My church's organization is relatively new and small compared to a lot of other organizations/denominations. The organization has an interest in growing and expanding into areas that are not already served by churches in the organization. Though it sometimes happens, the organization is not particularly interested in having more than one church in a city. So, in that sense, I agree with Z. My organization encourages people moving into an area to support the church in the organization that has already been established rather than starting something new in that city. So, as it relates to reinfusing existing churches, I think an organization should endeavor to reinfuse dying churches in its own organization rather than establishing a new church within the organization. Sometimes, however, depending on the dynamics, that might not be possible.

It would seem that we could do more collectively than separately, but not if we are not of the same mind and accord. And, frankly, that is what the number of churches is all about. Everyone doesn't want the same thing in their worship experience. Everyone doesn't believe the same thing when it comes to the everyday details of how church is to be conducted. In some cases, only subtle differences separate one organization's church from another, but it is enough to hinder the progress of the body. In that sense, we are better offer apart than together.

Sometimes, I think there are not enough churches. How can we ever get too much of something whose mission is so good, when so much evil is present in the world? I also find it interesting that the church is the only entity for which I consistently hear this observation. We can build as many other things (restaurants, stores, etc.) in close proximity to each other and people are happy to have another choice. Why can't it be that way with church?

You speak too much sense. Too much. Who cares if there are too many churches? As long as people are being fed and being brought closer to God that is all that matters. Too many people get caught up in things that really doesn't matter. Its all about the relationship with the indiviual and God and if it takes a gazillion churches for that, so be it. To God be the glory.

[Julie Art]

Sept 29, 2009 13:05:05 GMT -5 kingdelta said:

I love your summation HF. I guess the question would be do we have too many churches that are not effective.

If there is a church that is helping at least one person grow in their spirital life and grow closer to God, then they are effective, period. It's not for us as to humans to judge the effectiveness but God.

[No Screen Name]

Sept 29, 2009 13:05:05 GMT -5 kingdelta said:

I love your summation HF. I guess the question would be do we have too many churches that are not effective.

I say YES. I am kind of feeling some sort of way about church congregations that I see now. I feel like churches are not doing NEARLY enough.

Sept 29, 2009 21:00:37 GMT -5 Julie Art said:

You speak too much sense. Too much. Who cares if there are too many churches? As long as people are being fed and being brought closer to God that is all that matters. Too many people get caught up in things that really doesn't matter. Its all about the relationship with the indiviual and God and if it takes a gazillion churches for that, so be it. To God be the glory.

I see what you're saying, totally. But I went to a church once--I kid you NOT--including me, the pastor, the choir, the ushers, and the congregation--there were FOURTEEN people in the place. Churches take money to run, and this just is not a wise use of resources. This was an AME church--my denomination--and there were a couple of other microchurches in that area. To top it off, the city wasn't even really that big. As an AME, and KNOWING first-hand some of the issues we face, I feel like this was not a wise use of resources. For example, Morris Brown is an AME school. As most of you know, it lost accreditation, as did a few other AME schools. Why are we dumping money into churches that aren't really that effective when we have issues such as this going on?

I mean, I guess you can say, "If one person was blessed and received the Word, then it's worth it", but who's to say that somebody couldn't receive the Word in a church combined with other small churches to at least have a congregation of 50-100 folks?

[Julie Art]

You are putting wordly restrictions on something that is not of this world, and that is where the problem lies.
You can't look and confine something that is not of this world as if it is. Period. Once again, this is something for us not to judge, but God.

I also have a problem with the word "organization" and "denomination" being used when it is one religion that was created by Jesus. Christianity. All this other stuff is man made.

But that is just me.

[Julie Art]

Oh, and you speak of resources, but the only resource that should matter is the bible. You can have 3 people gathered in the forest with a bible and studying and worshiping and that's church because people coming together in the name of the Lord is church. Not buildings, pews, etc. Once again, putting wordly things on something that is not of this world.

[Cambist]

Not to offend but I have to disagree with some of you. While I understand the notion of having ACCESS to the knowledge of God, I am not sure that having 700 churches in an area of 70,000 people is a good thing....especially if many of these churches are of the same belief.....let me tell you why.

Many churches split over difference in protocols. I've seen this happen in extensively in Baptist and Pentacostal churches. One group feels that women shouldn't wear makeup or pants and the other is a bit more liberal (read: modern). This happens and a group leaves to form their own house. At this house, Mother Johnson isn't happy that Sister Reeves is so cozy with Deacon Weaver and so Deacon Weaver and Sister Reeves break off and form their own house.

It's a never ending cycle of foolishness. Usually, what it boils down to is someone wanting their own church so they can do their own thing. What ends up happening is people end up getting 137 mixed messages from uneducated folks making up stuff or reciting things they learned from another under or un educated Biblical "scholar".

In my opinion, if you can't talk to your pastor....or if you have to make an appointment to see your pastor.....or if your pastor wont marry or bury your loved one because they are too busy or they delegate the duty down to someone else....the church is too big. (for me)

If you CONSISTANTLY have 5 people in the pews and you find yourself asking them for more money every month to keep the "church house" doors opened.......you need to start meeting in your living room or garage. For real....

Can you have too much of a good thing? Well, #1. We are assuming that all of these churches are good. I can attest that many of them are a waste of good space.

My point, there is entirely too much individualism in churches. The mission and message get lost in the egos.This is especially true when you look at churches where the pastor is preaching the "Prosperity Gospel" and I use the term "gospel" very loosly.

[Highly Favored]

Oct 1, 2009 7:28:16 GMT -5 Cambist said:

Not to offend but I have to disagree with some of you. While I understand the notion of having ACCESS to the knowledge of God, I am not sure that having 700 churches in an area of 70,000 people is a good thing....especially if many of these churches are of the same belief.....let me tell you why.

Many churches split over difference in protocols. I've seen this happen in extensively in Baptist and Pentacostal churches. One group feels that women shouldn't wear makeup or pants and the other is a bit more liberal (read: modern). This happens and a group leaves to form their own house. At this house, Mother Johnson isn't happy that Sister Reeves is so cozy with Deacon Weaver and so Deacon Weaver and Sister Reeves break off and form their own house.

It's a never ending cycle of foolishness. Usually, what it boils down to is someone wanting their own church so they can do their own thing. What ends up happening is people end up getting 137 mixed messages from uneducated folks making up stuff or reciting things they learned from another under or un educated Biblical "scholar".

In my opinion, if you can't talk to your pastor....or if you have to make an appointment to see your pastor.....or if your pastor wont marry or bury your loved one because they are too busy or they delegate the duty down to someone else....the church is too big. (for me)

If you CONSISTANTLY have 5 people in the pews and you find yourself asking them for more money every month to keep the "church house" doors opened.......you need to start meeting in your living room or garage. For real....

Can you have too much of a good thing? Well, #1. We are assuming that all of these churches are good. I can attest that many of them are a waste of good space.

My point, there is entirely too much individualism in churches. The mission and message get lost in the egos.This is especially true when you look at churches where the pastor is preaching the "Prosperity Gospel" and I use the term "gospel" very loosly.

I agree. Some churches probably should not exist. All of them do not exist for the right reasons. I'll let God be the judge of that. But, what is one to do if their reason is right and other churches are already open in the area that are not getting the job done? Refuse to open another church because there are already too many?

And, you're right, there is too much splitting over "nonessential things". I am not an advocate of churches being established just because people can't get along. But, we are dealing with imperfect humans. And what usually happens if these people try to stay together is they end up spending more time arguing and disagreeing with each other than doing the Lord's work. When it gets to that point, it's time for someone to move on.

Not only that, a person's call will compel them to move on according to God's timing. A church can only have one pastor. A person whose call is to be a pastor can't stay with another pastor forever. Sometimes, what we see as ego is a person's gift making room for them to do what they have been called to do.

[123Diva]

Sept 29, 2009 10:57:44 GMT -5 Highly Favored said:

Good questions. I don't really think there is an easy answer, though. I think the answers depend on a lot of things.

Too many, IDK. Ideally, a man or woman of God would open a church because they believed that God sent them to an area to establish a work for Him. If God sent you, there can be 100 other churches in the area, you can't let that hinder you. God's ways are not ours.

However, realistically, not everyone that starts a church has really heard from God. They see the glamour of it all, but not the sacrifice that is required. I think these ministries are eventually weeded out anyway, so they are not really an issue.

My church's organization is relatively new and small compared to a lot of other organizations/denominations. The organization has an interest in growing and expanding into areas that are not already served by churches in the organization. Though it sometimes happens, the organization is not particularly interested in having more than one church in a city. So, in that sense, I agree with Z. My organization encourages people moving into an area to support the church in the organization that has already been established rather than starting something new in that city. So, as it relates to reinfusing existing churches, I think an organization should endeavor to reinfuse dying churches in its own organization rather than establishing a new church within the organization. Sometimes, however, depending on the dynamics, that might not be possible.

It would seem that we could do more collectively than separately, but not if we are not of the same mind and accord. And, frankly, that is what the number of churches is all about. Everyone doesn't want the same thing in their worship experience. Everyone doesn't believe the same thing when it comes to the everyday details of how church is to be conducted. In some cases, only subtle differences separate one organization's church from another, but it is enough to hinder the progress of the body. In that sense, we are better offer apart than together.

Sometimes, I think there are not enough churches. How can we ever get too much of something whose mission is so good, when so much evil is present in the world? I also find it interesting that the church is the only entity for which I consistently hear this observation. We can build as many other things (restaurants, stores, etc.) in close proximity to each other and people are happy to have another choice. Why can't it be that way with church?

EXALT.

[Julie Art]

Once again I defer to HF. Like she said, what we as humans by be calling it someone else's ego, it could actually be the divine call of God. We are not to judge. And there are false teachers out there, the bible speaks of this. But this is where the bible says to study to show thyself approved so you can see these false teachings for what they are and not follow them.

And as I stated earlier, these denominations are man made, not God made. Just one more thing to split the body of Christ.

[T-Rex91]

Sept 29, 2009 22:16:25 GMT -5 Julie Art said:

Oh, and you speak of resources, but the only resource that should matter is the bible. You can have 3 people gathered in the forest with a bible and studying and worshiping and that's church because people coming together in the name of the Lord is church. Not buildings, pews, etc. Once again, putting wordly things on something that is not of this world.

Juice, I ABSOLUTELY agree with your point. The point of the thread is not to condemn any group that gathers in God's name to worship, because I think we all agree that that is what we need more of. The problem I raised is the capital (buildings, pews, etc.) required to support a bunch of small, struggling churches. It's difficult to separate the two. I was more speaking of churches that aren't evolving with the times to attract new members and their populations, and ability to cover their bills, and do outreach is compromised. I'm talking about church startups who omit the word "starter" from their thinking and overcommit themselves in terms of space and ability to meet the budgets they have set. A new church that meets at the library and has very little overhead and saves for the day when they can step it up is very different from a new/old church that consistently operates in the red.