Christian Piatt includes church buildings on his list of five things that are holding Christianity back. He suggests that
“they have become an albatross rather than an asset.”
Reality Check
Most American congregations own buildings. The costs associated with maintaining these structures is significant. In congregations that are in the midst of extended periods of plateau or experiencing years of declining membership, the percentage of the annual budget needed for their upkeep continually increases.
The church was never meant to be a campus comprised of beautiful buildings; the church will always be God’s people. Nonetheless, it has long been the tradition of Christian communities of faith to gather together for worship, fellowship, and education. As we look to the future, however, it will be increasingly important to reconsider the role of real estate in the ministry and mission of local congregations.
What About?
Back in 2009, I suggested that having less real estate would be one of the more significant changes in the future of the American church. In that post, I imagined a future that:
views church more as the people of God and less as land and buildings. While most churches will continue to own real estate and worship in space they own, many will look to do more with less. Real estate will be viewed as a tool for ministry, not a growth strategy.
As a result of the so-called Great Recession, many struggling churches (and a number of churches fairing quite well) have begun to pay greater attention to the percentage of budgetary funds allocated to any and all areas of ministry and mission. One of the results of this is to look at the issue of capacity in terms of scalability. Last year I proposed that the move toward scalability has multiple implications for real estate holdings, including:
- A less is more approach to real estate that decreases the total amount of money spent to purchase, build, renovate and operate the buildings and grounds contained within the church’s physical campus.
- A move away from single-use space, especially those that are only used for a few hours a week. Every space, including the space used for worship, will be put to use for as many hours as reasonably possible.
- A move away from the idea that owning is always better than renting.
Additionally, I believe that the expanding role of technology will allow for some of the meetings that previously only occurred in church buildings to occur without the use of these edifices.
So What?
The time has come for local congregations to stop being held back by church buildings. If the percentage of the church budget used for this purpose has passed a threshold with which your leaders are comfortable, aggressive action is appropriate. Next steps will vary, but may include
- shrinking/downsizing (selling all of your space and moving elsewhere)
- sharing (renting out a significant portion of your space)
- shifting from owner to tenant (leaving behind any and all owned property in favor of renting).
The future of the American church is not dependent on the real estate holdings of its congregations.
- What is the maximum percentage of the annual operating budget of a church that you feel is appropriate to spend on church buildings and grounds? What is the percentage spent in your own congregation?
- What percentage of the total square feet of real estate owned by your church do you think is currently being used 10 or less hours a week on average?
- In what way(s) is real estate holding your local community of faith back from being and becoming all that God intends?