Share.
Think about it. Most church buildings sit empty most of the week. That's because most churches run essentially the same schedule:
Sunday
9:30-10:30 Sunday School
10:45-12:00 Worship Service
Wednesday
7:00-8:30 Midweek Activities for all ages
There's usually a few meetings scattered in there through the week as well.
Buildings are empty more than 90% of the week.
There are 168 hours in a week. The basic schedule I give above consists of about 10 hours of activity, and that's stretching it long (I'm not counting staff office hours; when it comes right down to it, they can work at home). That means the church building is being used only about 6% of the time. Now, you could argue the numbers one way or the other. Your church might be a little more active. I understand that. But I'd be willing to bet it isn't using its building more than 84 hours a week (50% of hours in a week), or even close to that. So why do churches pay thousands of dollars every month on mortgages/rent and upkeep of buildings that sit empty most of the time? It's asinine to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year for something that gets used so little. You wouldn't take out a mortgage on a house and then spend only 10 hours a week there, would you? Of course not.
Sharing facilities with another church would drastically reduce building expenses.
So what if half of the churches in your town sold off their buildings and started sharing facilities with another church? I see three things that would happen immediately.
1. Christians would have to learn how to get along with each other. Want to change carpet color? Or put a projector screen in the sanctuary? Now you have two congregations who get to argue over it instead of just one. I actually see this as a good thing. Maybe both will want to save a little face and they'll be more willing to compromise than when they only get to argue internally. Maybe.
2. Schedules would have to change. I know, it's scary. But just imagine it. Worship services on Saturdays. Or Mondays. Or Fridays. In the mornings. In the afternoons. In the middle of the night?! I know I'm leaning toward blasphemy here (that's sarcasm for those who don't know me), but sharing buildings would force churches to break out of the old mold of when church events happen. They'd be forced to do things at untraditional times. And who knows, they might accidentally minister to someone who couldn't make it on a Sunday morning before.
3. Resources would stop being wasted. How much is your church's monthly building payment? $1500? $2500? More? Now how much are the utilities and other expenses? Another $500? $1000? More? Imagine having half of that back to be able to actually bless your community with.
It sounds good in theory, but do you think it could really work?
Related Posts:
- Dogma
- 3 Things Wrong With An Otherwise Innocent-Looking Remark
It sounds good in theory, but do you think it could really work?
ReplyDeleteNope.
Some congregations can't get along within themselves. Imagine that tension with a whole other congregation. It would be a mess.
You might be able to get some churches to meet on other days than Wednesday, but every church would want to meet on Sunday.
It would have been more sensible to say that the church is wasting its resources on the building, so don't bother with one at all.
BTW, I like the multi-post format way better. :D
Isn't it sad that we are so bad at getting along?
ReplyDeleteAlso, I figured everyone would want to meet on Sundays. They'd just have to do it at different times on Sundays. Again, the "getting along with each other" factor comes into play.
As far as wasting resources, I agree with you. I was trying to add more to that discussion than just what normally gets said. That is, either "We can't have church w/o a building" or "Churches should never have buildings." Those are both polarizing opposites and I think the best solution lies somewhere in the middle. It's also different for every congregation.