Pastor Kevorkian

This post is from the defunct blog "Dying Church"

Dan commented below:

What about euthanizing churches? A couple of times I have seen (including first hand) decisions to euthanize an existing church, often in order to pool resources with other dying churches and create something new. I find that this sort of decision is incredibly brave and inspiring from churches - particularly where people have a strong connection with the history of the place.

I pastored a church for seven years that was really too small to sustain. I tried to lead them to consider this very thing, but they weren't interested. I went back a couple of weeks ago to their 74th anniversary. They're still getting by, and the pastor mentioned a few times how great it is to still have the doors open. I'm just not sure anymore that keeping the doors open is a valid reason for existing as a church. I'd be curious to hear of any stories of churches that willingly took the step of dying, not because they had to, but because they felt God was calling them to.

Comments

[dan]

The comment was prompted by the fact that my current church was birthed out of the "euthanasia" of four older churches. They were all the same denomination, all within about 5 km of each other, and all with limited prospects for ministry and growth. Only one could afford a full time minister. All had significant property assets. The majority of the members were elderly. So in discussions which began between 7 churches, 4 eventually decided to close their doors and birth a new church with a stated new direction. All four had an equal stake in the new church - all four sold their buildings, all four committed their assets to a new direction - to do something different from what had been done in the past. You can see more of the history of the church at the church's website. In contrast, one of the churches initially involved in the discussions opted not to join with it. Instead, they sold a manse to raise enough money to pay a full time minister for three years and rejig their building a little in the hope that this would create the needed spark. So far, there hasn't been the sort of spark there that we have experienced.

[ronz]

Brian Mclaren says "While the church lives on, churches have life spans." I'm part of a group made up of survivors from two "failed" church plants. One lasted seven years. The other only two. Both planters walked away feeling like failures. They had made 20 year commitments to God and the people who caught their visions. Knowing both of them and their stories well, I think God used them and what he birthed through them in awesome ways. He did what he wanted to do, but in the minds of the planters and most of the people it was impossible that that was enough. When the remnants of the two churches came together, we tried to continue "doing church:" we set up every week in a community hall, had our band and powerpoint and did our thing. Eventually, we asked ourselves the question, "If we stopped doing what we're doing, would anyone really care but us?" The answer was "no," so we stopped. Now 10-15 of us gather in a house with others who have since joined. We're a real church and pray we'll notice if and when we cease to be.

[Pen]

The idea of combining two churches to build a new one with a specific direction is common in the United Methodist Church (UMC). My wife and I have served as interns before of two churches that were birthed in that way. One was very successful and the other was not. Eighty percent of the UMC is rural and/or small. As the suburbs reach out and raise the population and standard of living in small towns the denomination has made a choice to pool resources of 'maintenance' churches and seek to build more 'boomer' and 'X-er' friendly churches. I am not necessarily sure if this is a good idea. The denomination hastens a church's death so as to birth a new church to new people. In many ways it strikes me as harsh as the family member that wants the loved one to die sooner so that they can have the house, the car, the inheritance. It is no longer about the person's life and the relationship of family -- rather it is about money and self and wants. Is the denomination an immature, petulant child that cares little for the relationship of the church family -- and more for the assets locked up in the church? I guess I agree with the need for freshness and newness in church life -- I am just not so sure euthanizing churches is the way to go about doing it...

[dan]

Our denomination is one where each congregation is autonomous. In this case of "euthanasia", the churches themselves had to decide that was what they wanted to do. Some chose not to be a part of the merger and have since closed. Some chose not to be a part of it and are still carrying on. However, the ones that did vote to take part were making a great sacrifice. As predominantly older people, they looked at what they had to offer the kingdom and their communities now and into the future. They decided the gift that would have the most impact would also be one of the hardest to give - allowing their beloved churches where they had been married and where they had grieved their family members to die, just at the point when they would be most entitled to hold dear to their memories and traditions. I can see that things don't always necessarily go as well, but I now feel a real call on the rest of my church life to live up to the high standards set by these church members.

[Janet]

I was a part of a church, which was the largest of 3 in the denomination in the city (40,000 people). One church had an average age of over 60, and approached our church for help. The elders's response was that they would help - but only if they closed the church as it was, and a new church was to be planted in the same buildings. To their credit, they chose this path, and a new church which was committed to serving the very poor community in which it was located was established by some people from our church, some from the old church, and built up into an active, community oriented church.