As I ponder this thought, it resonates within me that some churches should be allowed to die. I’ve been involved in times past with trying to revive a church which had no life left in it. However, deep emotional ties and a sense of loyalty to those who have given their lives to a church often prevents leadership from making the final decision to “turn off the respirator!”
Here’s what I’m wondering…
- If a church has failed to win converts for a period of years, is the church really alive?
- If a church has turned inward with the use of resources and personnel and sees no value in outreach, should it be allowed to continue as a church?
- If a church rejects those who visit and refuses to welcome new people, is it a church and should it be allowed it remain?
- If the excitement is gone and all that is left is duty … then do we lead or serve well by allowing such churches to remain open?
- If the finances are so low that it requires outside intervention to keep the bills paid (I’m not speaking of temporary, emergency experiences), then when do you just let it die?
There can be a sense of failure and guilt in letting churches close or die, but I cannot honestly understand why we struggle with this, spend so much money keeping anemic situations alive when the funds could be used to start new churches.
If Ecceliastes is true … to everything there is a season … does the same hold true for churches?
What do you think? (Click on "Comments" below.)
[from forwardleadership.org by billisaacs]