Pastor Kevin Bruursema of New Life Community Church in Chicago wrote on his blog, Caffeine, please, last week about how Chicago is becoming dechurched. Around his church he has witnessed churches closing and the buildings are becoming places like climbing walls and single-family homes.
I know of 9 former church buildings in my informal, accidental research that are no longer churches. These buildings are all within a short walk of our Lakeview and Lincoln Park locations.Here’s a (very, very, very) quick google maps demonstration of the approximate area of the churches listed in this updated post.
View Larger Map
The red marker is New Life’s Lakeview church, the others are all dechurched churches, and the bounding box is about 3.5 by 2 miles.
I’ve definitely heard of churches being reused as churches, but the phenomenon of churches being used for something like a photo studio is definitely new to me.
There is a sense of urgency in me to fight for this city. Worshiping Jesus is becoming very unfashionable and increasingly difficult to do, even for the interested or seeking.Local churches do die, and it’s not always a bad thing. Still, the proximity of closures makes one wonder.What does this mean? I believe it means that this is an unprecedented season to be worshiping Jesus and serving and loving this city and it’s communities in Jesus’ name. And if we capitalize on the opportunity side of this current church decline—this dechurching effect—then, I believe we may see God move with His favor in a broad spiritual awakening.
Anybody live in Chicago that can corroborate this anecdotal evidence? Any other city-dwellers—or anybody—seen similar closures?
Loading ...
December 3, 2007 at 13:55
Absolutely – have seen this in Chicago as well as in places as different as rural/touristy Door County (restaurant) to countless homes made out of small churches in small cities in New England. Interestingly, this seems to really cut across the spectrum of demographics, as even in the suburbs you occasionally see church buildings repurposed, though the “natural” life cycle of a church is long enough that most suburban churches are not in danger of this yet, though it’s definitely coming. It’s not hard to imagine megachurches having it happen too, since they often occupy large amounts of prime real estate and would need very little reengineering to be used as an office building – and they also have not been around long enough in general to fall victim to things that make huge churches die. Sad but also reminds us a lot of Great Commission.
December 3, 2007 at 14:01
I should add that in this particular region of Chicago it is very clearly linked to the older white ethnic (German, Polish, Ukrainian, etc., but especially German) population having long since moved to the suburbs or gotten quite old, but with most newcomers being either Roman Catholic (requiring FAR fewer churches per thousand worshipers because of their polity), non-Christian, or Christian but attending either big downtown “flagship” churches or more suburban megachurches, so here it is very obviously connected to demographics beyond those of mere church-going percentages. Once you get beyond the gentrifed sections, reuse by Latino Pentacostal groups, African-American groups, or other “outreach” (perhaps a misnomer) plants is more common, as well as the ubiquitous storefront church. There is even reuse of storefronts, as the storefront churches grow and move further out from downtown and then new storefront churches take their place!
December 4, 2007 at 03:27
I think it is a good thing.
For too long now we have made this building thing into something that it is not – Church!
We have allowed ourselves to slowly be indoctrinated into thinking that Church is a building.
If you do not believe this then just reflect on how many times you refer to Church whilst referring to a building.
So if you reinterpret this then someone is noticing/complaining that buildings that were used as central meeting points for the Church are now being used as something else. So what!
The true Church, the people, should be flexable and able to move and congregate anywhere at any time.
Church is when you meet not where you meet.
In a perverse way I look forward to seeing this happen to these “mega church” buildings and then maybe we can get back to real life in Christ.
December 4, 2007 at 04:08
Unfortunately, the situation is even more grave in Wales (and possibly the UK as a whole) where old chapels are commonly converted into mosques, sikh temples or trendy flats.
Oddly enough, these chapels are closing while modern and trendy churches are growing. I think that a reason behind why these chapels are shutting down is that the young people who could (and maybe should? I don’t know) carry forward the chapel’s vision prefer to have modern ‘worship’ ways served to them where they can mix with their friends instead of actually delivering change themselves in chapels where they may experience a season of isolation but really could make a big difference.
December 4, 2007 at 09:54
That’s an interesting point Richard. Many of those downtown Chicago churches have an antiquated feeling to them. Not exactly teen hang-outs.
To Pops, I know for me that the church building I attended growing up is indelibly linked to sensations of spirituality (and I readily admit that most of it is purely emotional). I can’t imagine what I would feel like driving past it to see it being repurposed as a skating rink or something. Is there a place for that sentimentalism in Christianity?
December 4, 2007 at 10:50
I for one am very pleased to hear of this trend of moving to home based worshipping of our Father and His Son. I have been involved with a home based ecclessia (the Greek word for Church) for over 12 years and have been benefitted by it and have been able to help others in ways that would not have been possible if our energy was in supporting a building rather than the people. Pops is correct, it is not only about the assemble, but about hearing and doing the word of Father and Son. This not a trend, it is the way that the Messiah taught. People are realizing that something is missing in the dog and pony world of churchianity and know that the answers are in the scripture. It is time now for true belivers to gather for His purpose and not that of man.
December 4, 2007 at 12:50
I would love to live in a former church.
Is this a bad thing?
Also, I think that these churches are empty because older Christians are dying and there aren’t that many younger Christians and their families to fill the gap.
Lets all prepare to see our worship centers and cathedrals and halls become cleverly repurposed commercial spaces; or! lets buy them, and have the neatest looking Christian homes ever.
And have church at them on the side.
I reiterate – a church-house would be so much fun!
December 4, 2007 at 13:41
It’s not so bad in Northern Ireland though there are a few city centre churches on the brink in Belfast.
Edinburgh is really bad. There are about 4 huge historical church buildings (Scotland has a strong Roman Catholic church, but the state church is Calvinist, well Presbyterian anyway) and only one of those buildings is still used for worship. The others are nightclubs or shopping precincts.
But it brings to mind the saying that the Christian church is only ever one generation away from oblivion.
December 4, 2007 at 16:26
As the author of the post referred to in this entry, I enjoyed reading the dialogue. I suppose that church buildings are a hotly debated topic in this generation of church, particularly here in the U.S.
Here are some questions I would raise in response to some of the comments:
—Is the issue of a local church’s need/lack of need for a building the same issue as a city’s loss of its church buildings?—Would your city be more likely to turn to God if all its church buildings were removed in the next 5 years?—Would Christians in your city be healthier and love Jesus more if they had no formal meeting places of their own?—Is the model of an invisible church the only healthy model of church or can church buildings play a role in healthy church life?—In areas of Western culture where churches are largely gone from the scene, what has been the cultural fallout? Has it helped or hindered people from finding Christ?—If you are happy with churches becoming homes and condos, would you be equally happy with former church buildings becoming mosques, Buddhist temples, Ba’hai temples, Adi Da communes, Mormon meeting houses or Scientology centers?—For the dechurched person (a person with a distant faith history), does the church building present in their community become a tool that God can use to tug at their heart?
To the blog author—thanks for the shout out!
December 5, 2007 at 01:46
Here are some comments I would raise in response to some of the questions:
1.Is the issue of a local church’s need/lack of need for a building the same issue as a city’s loss of its church buildings?
My point, at the end of it all what is being asked is: This building is being used for something else other that the original owner. That is like us getting concerned because the MacDonalds building is now being used as a Hardware store – so what? As far as the city is concerned, they still get their taxes and it makes no difference whose name is at the bottom of the check. Coming back to the “church” issue: I think a meeting place is important but again, the Church should be flexible and able to move at a moments notice. Unfortunately with all the expenditure on sound equipment, carpets, seating etc this would be impossible.
2.Would your city be more likely to turn to God if all its church buildings were removed in the next 5 years?
Not the way Christians have been led over the past 100 years or so, to be so totally dependant on a hierarchy and a building.
3.Would Christians in your city be healthier and love Jesus more if they had no formal meeting places of their own?
Again, no, they would not be and this is purely because they have been incorrectly taught that everything hinges on a hierarchy and a building.
4.Is the model of an invisible church the only healthy model of church or can church buildings play a role in healthy church life?
In the Bible we are told what is going to happen to the believers as the times draw to a close and yet we insisted on building an incorrect model of fellowship. This is clear by the topic here – if buildings are converted from use by the Church we have a perception that the “Church” is falling apart and that is a problem that we are unprepared for!
5.In areas of Western culture where churches are largely gone from the scene, what has been the cultural fallout? Has it helped or hindered people from finding Christ?
In Africa and China the Church is growing, in homes and out under trees. To me this shows that Western Culture had the wrong idea to start with so yes, there is bound to be a decline until the West gets back on track with the only one who is able to build the Church – Jesus.
6.If you are happy with churches becoming homes and condos, would you be equally happy with former church buildings becoming mosques, Buddhist temples, Ba’hai temples, Adi Da communes, Mormon meeting houses or Scientology centers?
It is just an issue of bricks and mortar. If these other religions utilize new bricks and mortar for their purpose or they utilize second hand ready bound bricks and mortar, it makes no difference to me, we are trying to build a Church that is not bound by these things.
7.For the dechurched person (a person with a distant faith history), does the church building present in their community become a tool that God can use to tug at their heart?
I think it is a tool that keeps them away from God as it holds too many unpleasant memories of hierarchy, rules and regulations and squandered money. A group of believers who love one another, love the lost & love the poor would be a far better tool for God to use to reach those who have wandered away.
December 5, 2007 at 03:17
Is the model of an invisible church the only healthy model of church or can church buildings play a role in healthy church life?
Kevin, you have hit a nerve and your questions clearly demonstrate the disconnect. All of the questions on your list are are firmly grounded upon the assumption that a building is the “Church.”
You indicate that the Church without a building is “invisible”. Perhaps we should be less interested in whether we are known in our cummunities for our buildings, than whether we (the Church) are known as those followers of Jesus with the radical agenda of fulfilling the great commission, doing the ministry he left to us all, feeding the poor, discipling the re-born, etc. We (the family of God) need to be far more “visible” than our buildings. If I remember right the world and the lost are to “see our good works” and glorify our father in heaven… not “see our really cool buildings” and somehow see them as glorifying our father in heaven.
I have always wondered why we (the body of Christ in the US) are so dependent on buildings and real estate that are used only one (or at most 2) days a week, when the body of Christ is not there most of the time. The Holy Spirit does not occupy the building… He occupies the people… and maybe that is what He is doing in Chicago and elsewhere… weaning us away from our selfish building and property dependence. We should be a church of actions that demonstrate our relationship (with Him) to everyone. It is relationship… not real-estate.
In areas of Western culture where churches are largely gone from the scene, what has been the cultural fallout? Has it helped or hindered people from finding Christ?
Again, you equate the lack of church buildings with the lack of Christian impact on the culture…when it is the lack of the “Church” (ie. the body of Christ) and the Spirit that destroys cultures and people. We have bought into the (largely western) cultural notion that property indicates power, position and relevance (for us and for the “Church”)... when Jesus’ whole life and message demonstrates a contrary model. In Europe and elsewhere church buildings have largely disappeared as a result of the Church (body) disappearing… not the reverse.
The body of Christ (“Church”) seems to be growing most powerfully and effectively around the world in regions and countries where there are very few church buildings, where the “Church” is forced through persecution to remain largely “invisible” to the society at large and the worldly powers that be… growing simply because the Spirit is at work and Christ is at the head of it all… and property (real or personal) is simply not seen as something for the followers of Christ to accumulate.
Maybe God is breaking away our (U.S.) dependence upon realestate as a prelude to breaking into our hardened hearts, our shallow faith, and our selfishly fortified bank-accounts. Maybe he wants us to live our faith everyday in everyplace, regardless of who owns the real estate.
December 5, 2007 at 09:30
Take a look at Kevin’s new comments on this topic over at his blog:
http://caffeineplease.typepad.com/caffeine_please/2007/12/dechurchificati.html
December 5, 2007 at 10:20
I posted this on my blog but in the interest of responding in the comment stream to the comment stream…
Church buildings are a kingdom resource. Not the only kingdom resource—far from it, in fact. Here are just a couple of “resources” that go far ahead of church buildings on my valuable church resources list:
* Jesus and His Gospel are the Church’s #1 ongoing, daily resource.
* The indwelling Holy Spirit of God stands as resource #1a.
* The Bible—absolutely mission critical.
* The transformed people of God—essential, a core resource, a defining element of what “church” is.
But church property is a valuable Kingdom resource—a stewardship—something to be handled for the sake of the Kingdom.
Worshiping buildings—bad. Worshiping in buildings, even buildings we own—not bad.
Church buildings represent opportunity space. Space that can be used for gathered worship of Jesus, space to serve the community, and space that can be exploited to provoke spiritual awareness in its neighbors.
Churches can survive and thrive without owning buildings. As a multi-site church, several of our locations have spent long seasons (3-14 years) renting space for worship gatherings every week—it’s familiar territory to us. Having or not having a building does not determine the ability of a church to minister to people and to grow.
But I am convinced that cities benefit from church buildings as well. Buildings stand in the midst of urban life and demand that people think about God. They work in concert with the living, breathing body of Christ to connect people to Jesus. Buildings provide opportunity for life-giving, life-transforming ministries to happen. Buildings express an open door to people who need God.
The disappearance of buildings from the landscape of a city—from the landscape of my city, Chicago—communicates to the people as well. As they disappear they say—
* “Church isn’t relevant—if it was, it would still be here after the community changes.”
* “Obviously, we’ve outgrown the need for church. Our community is fine without churches.”
* “Church people don’t care about church so why should I?”
* “Church is expendable. I don’t need a faith community to connect to God.”
I love my city—the city of Chicago. I want my city to love Jesus. I want my city to be unable to ignore the Church of Jesus. I want my city to be blessed by the presence of Christians and their church buildings—buildings that are used to make Chicago and its 77 different community areas a better place to live. I want to live out the mandate of Jeremiah 29:7, to “seek God for the welfare of the city.”
I believe part of that vision is in revitalizing (not selling) under-used church space. Taking sacred space that has lost its influence and re-energizing it with the presence of the Church of the living God.
December 5, 2007 at 12:53
The building is not the Church, but I believe it can be one of many spritual indicators of the people of that community. As churches diminish and buildings are sold for conversion to other uses, it indicates that something in the community has changed, and the church, for whatever reason, was unable to maintain a connection with the community. And on the flip side, the newer people in a community are not connecting to the local church. And I don’t think that larger churches can account for all of the discrepancy.
The church in Acts does provide a model of meeting in homes, but the Old Testament also provides a model of a building in the Tent of Meetings and eventually the Tabernacle/ Temple. Both, if utilized in a way that glorifies Christ, can have their place in current situations. To paraphrase a quote I heard attributed to Billy Graham; The message remains the same, but the way it is delivered changes.
I attend Pastor Kevin’s location of New Life. New Life utilizes both the church building (or rented space) and the use of home groups in our ministry to the local communities we serve.
December 6, 2007 at 10:49
I think some people are obsessed with their opinion about how “church” should be carried out.
I think it’s what happens in the church is what is important—multi-site or in someone’s house.
Regardless of “dechurchification,” I think leadership should be concerned about what is going on among a congregation, not about the next frontier of church planting.
December 7, 2007 at 14:23
Kevin and Brian,
Isn’t it wonderful how we are able to carry on “Church” here, communication and interaction in love, among the members of the Body at distance through technology… a form of relationship…without a building, without a budget, without overhead. Maybe a deeper discourse and more honest consideration than could every take place within the building.
Honest discourse and interaction, without any repurcussions on giving, money, attendance, position within the heirarchy, etc.
You are both my brothers, and I pray that He will continue to touch both of you and ignite your passion for HIM, drawing you into deeper relationship.
A couple of points in response, for you to mull over and pray about.
1. God made sure to destroy the temple in 70 AD, as Jesus had prophesied, to make sure that his people would not continute to build centralized institutions and property under the old/covenant… but would realize they were the temple of God, and themselves the holy priesthood… the priesthood of each believer (under the high priest… Jesus). That they were to “be” the church not build one.
2. Remember how when the rich young ruler came to Jesus he told him that the final thing he needed to do to inherit eternal life was to sell all that he had and give it to the poor? It wasn’t required by the law, and based upon his conduct and actions described in the Bible, and the fact that Jesus loved him so much, it was obvious that he was a good businessman, a good steward, and benefited many folks with his wealth. No doubt if he gave it all away lots of people would have been unemployed as a result, his family would have lost their inheritance, and there would have been other impacts from his radical, unreasonable obedience to Jesus’ command. He was doing a good thing with his wealth, he was a good steward with what God had given him…but Jesus wanted him to do a better thing… the best thing… get rid of the stuff that he was holding on to that kept him from a committed, dependent, personal, daily relationship with Immanuel (God with us).
Jesus did not ask the sale of all personal fortune and property of all of his followers and disciples. He only asked it of this one very rich man… the one to whom it was a hinderance to relationship… and he demanded it of him, regardless of how much good it was doing for people and the religious institutions of the time.
Think about our accumulation of church buildings, property and “stuff” in the body of Christ in America. All the denominational and congregational wealth that we have accumulated. We, like the rich young ruler, are incredibly wealthy. And we do lots of really good stuff with the buildings and property. Very good stuff. Like he did, we use it for God, we employ people, we create a “business” (institution) that is honest, proper and stands out in the community. We use it for his work, for meetings, training, worship, etc.
And like him, that property demands an inordinant amount of attention, upkeep, stewardship and incredible cash flow to maintain.
And, while we maintain the good work of using church property and buildings, our culture has fallen, our family’s are destroyed, the church institutions have become largely irrelevant to most in the world, and we have to make sure services end in time for the football game (or attendance falls).
What would happen if every church congregation in America sold all of their property (all of the property and other stuff that they have accumulated for Jesus), gave all the money to outreach, missionaries, direct care ministries, inner-city feeding programs, and the poor… and simply followed Jesus (together) every day. What if we gave up what was “good” about our wealth (because that is what it is… property is wealth accumulated by the institutions we have built around the Church) in order to pursue daily, radical, life-changing relationship with Jesus. If we believe that the whole world must be preached the good news about Christ before He comes, how much would this advance the kingdom… and how much would such a radical, crazy, non-intuitive, non-worldly step take towards convincing a jaded world that we really are committed to a living Christ who is alive and at work in the world…make them realize that we actually believe what He said, and that we know about another way… a way that makes no worldly sense, that is completely counter-cultural. That does not follow the American model of wealth accumulation and “success”.
How much would such a radical, crazy step be like the model in Acts?... where individual believers sold whatever they had and could, and gave it for the common good and sustenance of all believers. They were not rationally worrying about tomorrow, but sold out to Him for today, and today’s needs.
Maybe that is what is demanded, because for all the good we can (and do) do with our wealth and the property that is accumulated in His name, whatever we can and do do for great good as stewards of property…we can do better in demonstrating sold-out, committed relationship with our living Lord and Savior… relationship that we demonstrate in the places and times where we spend the vast majority of our time… work, school, home, recreation, etc.
Maybe for us,the Church in America, the challenge to producing fruit is not the “cares of this world,” but the “deceitfulness of riches.”
Wacky Food for thought.
Your eccentric brother.
December 8, 2007 at 01:27
I’m glad people are able to disagree here without fear of not getting promoted or looked down upon in the “heirarchy.”
December 8, 2007 at 04:51
Rhett said: What would happen if every church congregation in America sold all of their property (all of the property and other stuff that they have accumulated for Jesus), gave all the money to outreach, missionaries, direct care ministries, inner-city feeding programs, and the poor… and simply followed Jesus (together) every day.
Wow, I like the way you think man!
Somewhere here I read that the Christian community spends $8 billion a year on books, dvd, videos etc – can you imagine if that sort of money went into missions! Wheee Doggy!
December 13, 2007 at 12:13
The internet provides a great forum for debate and the exchange of ideas. I value it as well. But I value more the exchange of ideas that happen in person, in community, in the messiness of real relationships. Typed dialogue has a number of limitations. Kind of like buildings. Valuable, in their proper place.
I think our disagreement isn’t actually a disagreement. I believe that those who have reacted strongly to my comments about the loss of church buildings are reacting against macro-impressions of “the church in America” or “the church in the West” and its use of buildings. While I may agree with some of those macro-impressions, they don’t mean that every building is a compromise or that every church should rid themselves of their buildings to be “more faithful”.
I choose to react circumspectly to “building abuse”. I don’t believe Jesus’ words to our particular expression of church are presently, “sell all your buildings and give the money to the poor”. We’ve seen miraculous movement of church property into our hands without our pursuing it. We choose to use the property we have for the transformation of people and communities—they are “transformation centers” (sounds kind of new-agey, right?). For us its not buildings OR authentic discipleship. Its buildings AND authentic discipleship. Not buildings OR love the poor. Its buildings AND love the poor. These issues are not mutually exclusive.
The first church buildings were present in large numbers prior to Constantine. In other words, they were purchased and maintained by “the early church” before any Roman Emperor sponsored their production. Under Diocletian’s persecution in 303 A.D., he singled out the destruction of church property as a key component to his efforts of persecuting the Church (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/persec1.html).
Let’s be careful that in our zeal to see a holy and faithful Church, we don’t overreact to the failures of some churches by refusing key resources in the name of being faithful. The seed of empire-building in the hearts of people will not be rooted out of the Church by throwing away all of its existing buildings.