Does the use of a traditional church building interfere with converting the unchurched? Some argue that we need to move to house churches or meet in other non-traditional venues to attract the lost. A recent study disagrees —
[W]e asked, “If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church does not meet in a traditional church building impact your decision?”
The responses told an important story:
- It would not make any difference – 73%
- It would negatively impact my decision – 19%
- It would positively impact my decision – 6%
- Not sure – 2%
In fact, the “would not make any difference” response was higher among the unchurched than others. In short, a traditional building is an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Even though most of those who were asked don’t seem to care if the church has a traditional church building, those who have a preference strongly favor traditional locations — by an almost a three to one ratio. Almost every demographic group, out of those with a preference, had more people open to the traditional locations than to the non-traditional ones.
There is a huge openness to non-traditional locations, but it’s far from essential that a church plant meet in a restaurant or movie theater rather than a church building. Indeed, people seem to prefer that churches meet in church buildings, but the clearest conclusion is that most people simply don’t care either way.
Therefore, a church plant can meet wherever is convenient and affordable and likely do well.
"Does the use of a traditional church building interfere with converting the unchurched?"
is a very different question than
“If you were considering visiting or joining a church, would knowing that the church does not meet in a traditional church building impact your decision?”
i'm not suggesting that meeting in homes necessarily lends itself more to conversion or the acceptance of Christ and his kingdom. but i am suggesting there is a difference in the above questions. it is a possibility, at least, that meeting in homes or movie theaters is tremendously advantageous in unchurched people actually coming to accept the gospel (and, therefore, being converted).
so getting people in the doors is one question — and the one this study was attempting to address. but it's important that we read the findings in light of that. feeling comfortable entering a church's meeting place is not the same as being converted — nor would it necessarily increase the likelihood of such.
[i'm not saying that you, jay, misread the findings or tried to imply something other. i'm only assuming (which may be unfair) there are some who would indeed read more into this survey than can actually be learned from it.]
This reminds me of a trend in thought processes that is developing in me as I get older. I haven't decided whether good or bad, but nevertheless, it is a trend. When I was younger, I seemed to jump on the fad bandwagon much faster than I do now. I didn't have experience one way or the other so a new idea that had potential was always worth a try.
As I tried out these new and fresh ideas I found that some worked and some didn't. Some even caused more harm than good. There would often be some unforeseen reason the particular idea didn't work out. As a result of those experiences, I tend to not jump as quickly. I try to first think through what could go wrong and why.
Like I said, I'm not sure this is a positive trend, but it does have merit at times.
There is still a place and a need for the little red brick church building on Common Ave, Anytown, USA. Many "unchurched" remember the neighborhood church of their childhood, and a visit for them is a comforting trip back home.
"Some argue that we need to move to house churches or meet in other non-traditional venues to attract the lost."
I really don't think the venue is the problem with drawing people to Christ, Maybe if we were to not refer to them as "lost" while all the time referring to Christians as "saved" they might listen to the benefits of becomming a follower of Christ more sincerely. I myself prefer the word "unchurched" , or unconverted.
When I hear some one call another "lost" and say they know they are saved, I always remember what James said.
Jam 4:12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy:
who art thou that judgest another?
Jam 4:13 ¶ Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into
such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get
gain:
Jam 4:14 Whereas ye know not what [shall be] on the morrow. For
what [is] your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time,
and then vanisheth away.
Jam 4:15 For that ye [ought] to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and
do this, or that.
Jam 4:16 But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil.
Jam 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it]
not, to him it is sin.
James tells us we don't know what will happen tomorrow, but we claim to know what will happen in eternity. We claim the works we do does not contribute to our salvation, yet we say those who do not those things we did will spend eternity in hell. go figure. I believe attitude still has more to do with conversion than buildings.
Whether the meeting is in a traditional building or not can (can, but not necessarily, but as a trend, i think so) impact what people come to perceive they are being converted to, and how the converted view their own function, mission, and identity.
Last year the elders proposed that we turn the chapel (the old auditorium that is rarely used for much at all) into a space for the youth ministry. There was tremendous uproar among a few people who were deeply insensed because if it got turned into a youth center, then where would they have their own funerals?
A building can become an idol or an obstacle to people's understanding of the nature and function of Christ's body.
–guy
Isn’t this why we started small groups, to get the best of both worlds? I enjoy worship with 800-900 fellow Christians, but I also enjoy my small group of ten that meets at a friends house and where everyone knows each others name. Some people will expect you to have a physical building with an address and phone number in the yellow pages. Others are afraid of large assemblies and crowds and prefer a more intimate setting. I am glad I can do both, and reach out to both.
Let’s stop here for a moment: What do buildings have to do with converting the unchurched? Jesus did NOT invite the sinners to the synagogue, nor did He instruct His disciples to do so. Rather, he sent them to the villages; there they should knock at anybody’s door and eat and drink what they may be served – they should bring peace to the people, not people to a church building!
The impact Jesus had was mainly because He ate with the sinners and went to their houses (e.g. Zachaeus the tax collector and Simon the Pharisee).
Again this would be a wrong approach. The apostles went from house to house and planted churches in the houses, where people were open to the Gospel. We don't do house-church just because we thinjk it is a better means for Evangelism. A church is a church wherever it meets – uncircumcised people have no entrance to the temple whether the temple meets in a huge building or in a living room (Closed communion => paradigm shift!).
The reasons for doing house-church are simple and easy to grasp for every restorationist: There are far more examples for meeting in houses than for a-cappella worship. So whoever is stressing the silence concerning IM MUST be totally committed to the clear words on meeting in houses (just a question of consistency).
I think we should first ask how the Lord wants His church to be built. Since we have often debated the transition from the OT to the NT in the context of IM, we can even more clearly see the difference between a temple of dead stones and one of living stones. If we think a little deeper about this and make a list of all the meeting places of a NT church, we’d end up recognizing that there might be a valid reason for meeting in houses. This might be the best reflection of two aspects of a church:
a) We don’t worship in a temple built of stones any more
b) The “house of God” can (and shall) also be translated as the family of God (or household), which is best demonstrated when we meet in a setting that looks/feels/acts like a family.
Actually, this survey asked the wrong people. If you asked a drunkard whether he would eventually consider joining a church if they serve beer for free there, you can guess his answer. If you ask people who have always associated church with a building (because that is our post-Constantinian church-culture), you know what would feel normal to them before even asking them.
And there is a reason for that: In a large church (with pews) you can enter, seat yourself in the back-row and have a good chance of staying anonymous. You sit there passively, accept from the pulpit what fits your own convictions, reject the rest without anyone noticing … all of this does not work in a house church.
In a house church, the meetings are participatory, everyone is challenged and asked to contribute; teaching is often in the style of a conversations, where questions are asked and everyone is challenged to give an answer. Hymns are chosen by each member of the congregation; every brother can bring a short teaching; everyone can share in prophecy and prayer … welcome to 1Co 14:26-40! This does not work in a church building that seats 1000 or more people and keeps them silent.
It is not about pragmatism.
It is not about evangelism.
It is about the way church ought to be and function.
Alexander
Isn't this why we started small groups, to get the best of both worlds? I enjoy worship with 800-900 fellow Christians, but I also enjoy my small group of ten that meets at a friends house and where everyone knows each others name. Some people will expect you to have a physical building with an address and phone number in the yellow pages. Others are afraid of large assemblies and crowds and prefer a more intimate setting. I am glad I can do both, and reach out to both.
I once went to a house church with a friend. The leader that night was a woman who spent her time visiting and staying for awhile with one particular house church after another. She was old and very wise and she had all of her possesions in one relatively small suitcase. A member of this house church provided her with a room to sleep in and another member provided her with a car so she could get to her next location. All of this was very strange to me and I couldn't make the jump to worship this way, The worship was pretty conventional (except for a woman doing the main speaking) and they sang acappella and there was a ton of love in the room. But, I was much too conventional to worship in that fashon.
But, somehow it all seemed so right.
Rich W,
I have to agree. It's very fashionable in academic circles and among young ministers to speak ill of the building and the "attractional" model — and to sneer just a little bit when an old guy talks about inviting friends to church. You see, we're all supposed to leave the building and do mission outside the building!
The fallacy, of course, is the either-or attitude, as though we can't both invite friends to church and do mission outside the church and as though we can't both have attractive services and have attractive service to the hurting and needy outside the building.
John,
I think there's a lot of merit to the old neighborhood church. It's easier to build community in a community and to serve a community when you're part of a community.
Large, cosmopolitan churches have real advantages, too — large talent and financial resources, great programs, etc.
I see a trend in churches to grow by becoming multi—site, which gives the church the advantages of both.
I agree that the traditional church building offers advantages. I also find it sometimes amusing to watch the hard positions Christians take on the "fad" of the year. One year, its a great pulpit preacher that will launch church growth. Five years later, its small groups that will launch church growth. Recently, I'm hearing that a modern musical worship service will launch church growth. From my viewpoint, its a loving and unified group of God loving Christians that will launch the growth of the church. There's far to much emphasis on the "fad" of the year.
I suppose, this was a meeting of the Conneyites (women dressed modestly with long skirts). The have many impressive insights, but some things I find very disturbing (teaching or leading women is one of them).
Alexander
The friend of mine who invited me never mentioned a name for this group and I was his friend for a very long time. I don't recall long skirts being the women's fashion guideline but I do recall that they all had long hair, usually up in a bun. This group really changed my friend and that change endured. The biggest change was his quick temper disappeared and was replaced with a sincere quiet and serene nature.
After looking at the link to Conneyites, I see several things that make me believe this group wasn't linked to them. For one thing, the older lady I mentioned was traveling alone and not with a companion. Another thing was that she was clearly in charge of a meeting where there were men present. The members of this group revered her and consider her to be almost if not equal to an apostle. Like I said, all this was too much for me to accept and while I was curious, I chose not to engage further with them after a visit or two. But, I enjoyed my visit and my discussions with the older lady.
I am neither an academic nor am I a person that is running after fads; still I am conviced that the "attractional model" is wrong. Biblically and historically wrong.
It results in a kind of worship, Paul or any other apostle would not recognize any more – not because of a time- and culture gap, but because of the whole idea, point and "performance" of our worship services.
A few headlines to illustrate:
Weeping with those who weep, rejoicing with those who rejoice – as part of fellowship this is what we experience in our small house church. In an assembly of over 100 people this is put out of the worship-service into private conversations. To follow this apostolic instruction, the assembly must be small enough, and it must act and work like a family (intimacy!). We would not open our hearts to strangers in this way.
The assembly is for edifying the saints (I) – it is also participatory, so that everyone can contribute with the gifts God gave them through the Spirit. Contemporary "building"-worship leaves no room for the work of the Spirit through all of Chrsit's members, but limits participation to 5 or 6 brothers out of 100s or 1000s of God's assembled priests (!). This performance-oriented worhip keeps the vast majority of His royal priesthood silent and passive. This is a practical denial of our calling even though we pay "!lip-service" to 1Pe 2:5-9. And it ignores the description of Early Chrsitian worship in the NT and speaking "to one another" (1Cor 14:26-40; Col 3:16; Eph 5:18-19). But this only works, when the assembled congregation in small – out of experience not more than 20-30 people. This means, we don't need large buildings, but only large enough living rooms to accomplish the goal of our assemblies.
The assembly is for edifying the saints (II) – This also means, the teaching is designed to prepatre the disciples for the work of service. We therefore don't preach the Gospel in ouzr assemblies, we build on the foundation that was laid. We teach the Scriptures to peopl who already know their value and want to obey God in everything. This is not meant for outsiders. But – strange enough – even if an outsider would enter and witness prophecy (which is for believers not for unbelievers) he would recognize God's Presenmce among us and fall to his face (1Co 14:24-25). But this does not mean: "See, we shall invite strangers to evangelize them!" It may happen, but it is not the goal or point of our meetings.
And there is a very strong reason NOT to invite strangers:
We enter God's holy presence – This is more than entering a "building". We enter a place, no mortal sinner can survive in! We can come only through the blood of Christ, cleansed and in faith (Heb 10:19-25). If we invite outsiders to our meetings, we blur this dimension of our worship. It contradicts God Holiness to invite all sorts of people into his presence. In the OT – which is a type for the NT – God called this an abomination (Ez 44:6-8).
The way to reach out is to go out!
Alexander