On Megachurches and Building Funds
'We were convinced that houses of worship should be plain and cheap, to save from financial burdens, and that everything should say welcome to the poor...We went in poverty, to give ourselves - and what God might give us - determined to forego provision for the future and old age, in order to see the salvation of God while we were yet here...We would be glad to do much more, yet hundreds of dollars have gone to the poor, with loving ministry of every kind, and with it a way has been opened up to the hearts of men and women, that has been unutterable joy. The gospel comes to a multitude without money and without price, and the poorest of the poor are entitled to a front seat at the Church of the Nazarene...' - Phineas Bresee, October, 1898
One Hundred and ten years ago this October a man distrought with the ornate, middle-to-upper-class 1st Methodist Church of Los Angeles proclaimed what is written above. He said that this new thing he was involved in, this 'Church of the Nazarene' would not be like the church he left. He vowed that it would not be a place where money was used to build bigger and better buildings, ones that were attractive to the rich and affluent, but rather Nazarene buildings were to be plain, and cheap. These were to be places that promoted equality, invitation to all, and with one purpose: the proclamation of salvation in Christ. The money that came in was not to be used to 'build bigger barns', or to be hoarded for future enjoyment, but to be distributed to the poor, to those in immediate need. This idea was not popular to the elite, but it fueled a movement that became a church. The Church of the Nazarene was founded with these ideas about its houses of worship.
So what happened? I know most houses of worship that carry the name 'Church of the Nazarene' would fall in line with the quote above, but what about the ones who don't? How does a large, even mega, Church of the Nazarene justify the spending of millions of dollars on creating these massive places of worship? When our founder established that we should not place ouselves under 'financial burdens' in regards to our buildings, how do we justify locking congregations into paying out millions over years/decades on a mortgage, when there are immediate needs in our communities, in our own congregation?
I guess my sentiment is this: I believe that the Nazarene congregations who have spent and are spending millions on their buildings do good work, BUT I have yet to hear a good explanation of WHY it takes a multi-million dollar facility to do the good work. And I believe our founder would resonate with this sentiment.
So let us celebrate our 100 years, but also let us re-examine our 100 years in an effort to remain faithful to Christ, and to those who have handed over to us, His Church.
Grace and Peace,
Joseph
One Hundred and ten years ago this October a man distrought with the ornate, middle-to-upper-class 1st Methodist Church of Los Angeles proclaimed what is written above. He said that this new thing he was involved in, this 'Church of the Nazarene' would not be like the church he left. He vowed that it would not be a place where money was used to build bigger and better buildings, ones that were attractive to the rich and affluent, but rather Nazarene buildings were to be plain, and cheap. These were to be places that promoted equality, invitation to all, and with one purpose: the proclamation of salvation in Christ. The money that came in was not to be used to 'build bigger barns', or to be hoarded for future enjoyment, but to be distributed to the poor, to those in immediate need. This idea was not popular to the elite, but it fueled a movement that became a church. The Church of the Nazarene was founded with these ideas about its houses of worship.
So what happened? I know most houses of worship that carry the name 'Church of the Nazarene' would fall in line with the quote above, but what about the ones who don't? How does a large, even mega, Church of the Nazarene justify the spending of millions of dollars on creating these massive places of worship? When our founder established that we should not place ouselves under 'financial burdens' in regards to our buildings, how do we justify locking congregations into paying out millions over years/decades on a mortgage, when there are immediate needs in our communities, in our own congregation?
I guess my sentiment is this: I believe that the Nazarene congregations who have spent and are spending millions on their buildings do good work, BUT I have yet to hear a good explanation of WHY it takes a multi-million dollar facility to do the good work. And I believe our founder would resonate with this sentiment.
So let us celebrate our 100 years, but also let us re-examine our 100 years in an effort to remain faithful to Christ, and to those who have handed over to us, His Church.
Grace and Peace,
Joseph
posted by Joseph | 10:57 AM
14 Comments:
But we're not doing something right if the church next door has 10,000 people and a gym and we don't. We should ALWAYS follow the latests church trends so that we can keep up with the Jonses. You can't do ministry without a gym, a Starbucks, and cutting edge audio/visuals!
That is why I am no longer pastoring a traditional Nazarene church. The vision for helping the poor should be the driving force of our church, not a missions-service add-on.
A new church will hopefully launch this Easter in Dayton, Ohio. It will be Nazarene, but it will be diffrent.
www.discoverthegathering.com
First, know that I'm writing this as the founding pastor of an 8-yr-old church of about 100 people meeting in a banquet hall... We don't have any building at all, and our "building fund" has less than $10,000 in it...
A large/mega-sized church does not necessarily mean fancy, ornate, etc. Many mega-churches are just the opposite: utilitarian and plain. (And many other churches -- of all sizes -- are gaudy, fancy, and expensive-looking.)
If the issue is the number of dollars being spent on those large facilities... What, really, is the per-capita expenditure? Is it possible that small churches (like mine) are really being more wasteful than the large ones? I really don't know the answer to this, but I wonder if small churches don't spend more $$ per person on their building than larger churches do.
We could go to the opposite end of the spectrum and ask, Why spend any money at all on buildings? After all, the early church didn't own buildings, and they did alright. The underground church in China isn't spending money on facilities, and they've made millions of disciples. What gives us the right, when there are needy people around us, to spend money on a building?
I'll admit, I'm still wrestling with that myself. But evidently Phineas concluded that it was OK to spend money on a meeting place, so long as it's plain and welcoming to the poor. And I'd say many megachurches I've been in fit that description.
Thanks for the prompt responses.
Zack:
I knew I could count on you for some good ole cynicism to the extreme :-)
Heath:
I have checked out your website and you have some good ideas; sounds like Brisee would like your concern for compassionate ministries. I must say, however, that I'm not advocating not having an actual building. I believe the Church very much includes an established place of worship, a place that is recognizable as a Church, a place that one can look to and know that Christ is there, a place that people can know that if they need something they can go there and receive help. My main concern with the blog is the fact that I think there are some churches who spend way too much money on the facility. I'm very interested in what you have begun in Dayton and I will definitely be checking your progress via your website (I live in England).
Rich:
I think a 'per-capita' amount to spend on a congregation is a bit of a stretch. I've been in mega-churches that are plain and in-ornate, etc., but when the service started the big screens became bright, the lights turned low on the people and high on the platform, and the scene reminded me of a concert. This opens another can of worms, maybe a second blog.
To establish a uniform criteria for assessing how much to spend on a church is impossible, but I think it is possible to know how much a congregation can handle in regard to a mortgage, maintenance, etc., without putting a strain on the finances.
And I admit, my bias against 'mega' churches also comes from my ecclesiology. I really don't think churches should have more than 150-200 members. Anything bigger than that makes a congregation more susceptible to faction, division, and plain old ignorance of one another. I've attended churches where no one knew me even after a year of faithful attendance. Smaller churches become the best arena (pardon the word choice) for the building of community. 150-200 people can get to know one another intimately, which allows them to really be the Body of Christ to one another, and it becomes easier to unify together for the cause of Christ in the community where the church is located.
Anyway, I'm ranting now. Forgive me for my cynicism, but when you see Nazarene churches struggle to pay the pastor and keep the doors open just minutes down the street from a Nazarene church worth millions it seems that something is not right.
I was very excited to see that there was finally a new post here. I resonate with this post a lot. I had never read that quote by Bresee and feel a little more proud to be a Nazarene because of it. I wish my pastor back home blogged because I would definitely point him towards this post. My church board at home is in the process of considering investing in expensive projectors and screens at the front of the church. They are also considering buying some more land for future expansion. This distresses me greatly when there is so much more this congregation could be doing for the community around them.I also agree that a church can not be as effective when it is over around 150. How can a congregation truly be brothers and sisters to each other if they don't even know the other persons' name?
Joseph is right to caution us to not through out the baby with the bathwater. Bresee didn't say not to have buildings, but rather to be cautious to not become materialistic about our buildings - not to become hindered by our buildings.
I think the building is a vitally important component of incarnation - especially to the poor and transient.
I was once part of a church plant in just such a neighborhood (Daniel is very familiar with the one...Tell Kev I said hi). When we were starting we spent many nights discussing the merits of investing in a building. When was the last time these people had anything their own? When was the last time this community had something they could take a modicum of pride in? How much greater our message of love to them to invest in that community establishing a sense of permanence rather than the continuing the pattern of transiency so prevalent with the poor.
From a worship component, I think we must not confuse simplicity with ugliness. David urged us to "Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness." Holiness is inherently beautiful. God is inherently beautiful. Our worship ought to embrace this beauty in its liturgy, in its music, and yes, in its architecture and adornment. When was the last time you entered a Nazarene church and were entranced by the sacred beauty of it? I could tell you perhaps a dozen "high church" buildings where this is true, but not a single Nazarene one. This is indeed a tragedy!
Well, this is a very interesting topic. I look forward to reading more replies...
For you and with you,
Eric+
Cynicism? Joseph I'm hurt. :) I am. Most definitely the pot calling the kettle black. The church I serve at has a $3 million "family life center". It's a great space and it does get used for ministry. Our contemporary service is held there every Sunday, as is Sunday School, and the youth room. I even fall into the trap of being jealous of the mega church next door (literally) wishing that our youth room was as "cool" as theirs.
Unfortunately, I have had to witness firsthand the issues that Breese and Joseph warn about. We still owe over $2 million on our $3 million facility that was built 3 years ago. Combine that with low tithing due to (fill in the blank) and our church finds itself in the midst of a spending freeze unable to fund any ministry becausecwe barely have money to keep the lights on.
Certainly are financial woes are due to a number of contributing factors but I think that it is a good example of how big budget expenses intended to aid in our ministry to the community can sometimes get in the way and impede the very goal we are trying to accomplish.
By the way if you would like to make a donation to our church just give me a shout and I would be happy to give you our contact info. :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
OK, Joseph... If your real assertion is that churches shouldn't be larger than 150-200, then make that argument. If, however, you're concerned that large churches are spending too much money on their facilities, then you're going to have to define what counts as "too much." Is it a dollar amount (like the "millions" you mentioned in your original post)? That seems silly, and arbitrary, since larger buildings naturally cost more than smaller ones.
Do 1,000 Christians spend more on their facilities if they all meet as one church in one large building, or do they spend more if they meet as 10 smaller churches in 10 smaller buildings?
That's why I suggested some sort of per-person calculation -- though, really, any kind of church-to-church comparison would also have to consider something like local land/building prices, since these vary widely from place to place. And it's no use saying we shouldn't compare one church to another, since the whole assertion that mega-churches spend "too much" while smaller churches do not is a church-to-church comparison.
But... If your concern, instead, is simply that churches shouldn't spend more than they can handle, then again I'd argue that the size of the church has nothing to do with it. Plenty of small and mid-sized churches have over-spent on facilities and landed themselves in such high levels of debt that they can't afford to spend money on ministry, pastoral salaries, etc. You don't have to be a mega-church to overspend on facilities.
I agree with you, by the way, that something isn't right if two Nazarene churches are on the same street, one struggling to pay their pastor and keep the doors open, while the other is in a building worth millions. But I imagine we disagree wildly about what's not right about it.
Oh, I forgot... If you faithfully attended a large church for a year and didn't manage to get to know anyone... How was that the church's fault? How did you even manage to DO that? I've attended churches of 50, churches of hundreds, and churches of thousands. And in every case, I managed to make friends, get involved in ministry, etc.
It's not too different from comparing small towns with big cities. Some people love the "intimacy" of a small town, where everybody knows everybody (and everybody's business). Others love the big city, where you can always find people to connect with you around your passions, interests, special needs, etc. Community is found in both, just like community is found in both small churches and large churches. But it's not automatic in either.
Rich- I'll let Joseph respond to you first about the building issues but you said something else that caught my eye that I was hoping you could explain. You said you thought that you and Joseph would probably "disagree wildly" about what's not right about Nazarene pastors getting paid nothing while the opposite is going on next door. It's the "wildly disagree" part that's got me stumped. Could you please explain? Why would you say that that situation isn't right? Thanks.
Two things:
1. Yes, Rich, you are right to note that my criticism of large churches does have more to do with my opinion on how large a church should be. And well put, there are probably many smaller churches out there who spend/waste a lot of money in comparison to a large church. But when you say the mega churches' money has been spent in a way that is utilitarian and makes the building plain, can you give me some specifics? I'm sure this doesn't happen everywhere, but I'm not sure spending $20,000 on a youth room filled with video game systems, plump couches, and massive televisions is very utilitarian (in the Christian sense of the word). Also, I don't see why we need to spend hundreds on football jerseys for the congregation/leadership to wear during our sermon series that makes the Church analogous to football. (I don't see how that even works in itself, forget the jerseys).
Anyway, in regards to spending, you are correct, what must be examined is the utilitarian purposes of the purchases, and the economic health of the congregation. Thanks for pointing this out, and maybe there could be a per capita amount, I'm just not a statistician.
2. In regards to your response about my saying I went to large churches and no one knew me, let me clarify. I DID do something. I joined the choir, attended sunday school, played ultimate frisbee with the men's group. I DID a lot, but the reason I said no one knew me is probably because all of those things were surface deep. There was no true intimacy because all of those 'events' where just that, events. We would attend, perform, and leave. I guess it is as much my fault as anyone else's, but we never interacted during the week. And I (maybe wrongly) compare those experiences to other experiences I have had in smaller congregations, places where I could tell you every member's occupation, address, and family names. Maybe I'm getting too personal for a blog, but this is where I'm coming from and this is where my belief in the smaller congregation has been formulated in practice.
Finally, with Zack I ask, What are the different reasons for what is right/wrong about the two Naz churches just down the street from each other? The topic of pastors being cared for by the Nazarendom is one of particular interest to Zack and me.
And by all means, anyone who has a different experience of mega churches than what I have expressed on this blog, please let me know of them. I am very critical and I need to work on it.
@Joseph: Ah, so when you said "no one knew me," you meant, "no one knew me well." I see. Yes, that's different. You're right, that's harder to get away with in a smaller church. But I've also been in some small group Bible studies before where nobody really opened up, either. You could attend for a year - with just 10 people - and still not share what's really going on in your life.
Also, what you see as a church wasting money in that youth room, they probably see as an investment in mission to youth. I can't say which it is, not knowing the situation. But I've seen enough small churches waste money on pipe organs, stained glass, steeples, etc, to know that mis-directed spending is not a megachurch-only problem.
@Zack & Joseph: On the two churches with different financial situations... I'm assuming some things here. Feel free to correct me, if I'm missing the mark. I assume you (Joseph) think that such inequality just shouldn't exist, that the larger church should reach out and help the smaller one in some way. I have no problem with that happening, and yes, I believe churches should work together and invest in each other.
For context: I live in an area with lots of Nazarene churches. I'm a 20-minute drive from 7 of 'em. Two have weekend attendance in the 750-1,200 range. Three are in the 150-300 range. Ours is 75-150, and the other is maybe 30. The largest is in the same town as ours, and they're in the midst of a building expansion program that's in the millions of dollars. Do I begrudge them that? Nope. They honestly need it, because they continue to reach more people, and they've run out of space, even with multiple services.
So what I see as not right about the situation you described isn't that the larger church isn't bailing out the smaller one. What's not right is that the smaller one isn't learning from the larger one, is (perhaps) too stubborn to change in order to actually reach the people around them. We're a small church, and that critique applies to us a bit, but we're constantly learning and changing, and we have the energy and passion to thrive. That church of 30 down the road, on the other hand, is likely to close, eventually.
If the smaller church isn't faithfully being about the mission Christ gave us, why should the larger one throw away people's offerings to God by propping it up?
Let me add that we've given generously to our daughter church in another state, as they struggle to establish themselves. They're a church of 50 or so right now. I really have nothing against churches supporting each other. :)
If I spend time to comment, I'll break.
One thing I'm enjoying: Not only do I pastor a "regular" Nazarene congregation, but on Sunday afternoons I drive forty-five minutes in order to pastor a group of four other adults in the living room of a newly committed family. We sit around a table, give our offerings to Naz compassionate ministries, and enjoy zero expense.
I've written my feelings about financially overextended congregations in a post http://runawaypastor.blogspot.com/2008/10/poverty-blog-action-day.html
I believe I serve a Naz church that has paid a huge emotional, spiritual price for chasing an overbuilt temple.
Well put. Thank you for the historical perspective. I'd forgotten that Phineas Bresee would be a good source of quotes and teaching.
Grace and Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home