I recently read an article titled Revitalization: Abiding as the Declining Church on the LCMS Leader Blog webpage. Most of it was very
well written and a good reminder to the Church at large. However, the following
sentences troubled me:
Our natural tendency in revitalization is to focus on preserving the institution of the church. This shows itself in a congregation’s stubborn refusal to close its doors long after it has passed the point of viability. It shows all the more clearly when the surviving members are willing to exhaust the resources that could be used for a new ministry in order to prolong one that has effectively ended.
Is it possible for a congregation to be “stubborn”? Of course it is. Congregations are made up exclusively of sinners. That being said, stubbornness can be found in both small and large congregations, in both poor and rich congregations, in both declining rural or inner city and thriving suburban congregations.
My questions are these: How does the institution define “the point of viability” for a congregation? Why does the institution assume that “a new ministry” is better than an existing one? How can the institution say that an existing ministry “has effectively ended” if God’s Word continues
to be preached faithfully and His Sacraments continue to be administered
according to the Gospel in that place for the benefit of God’s saints?
Jesus promised, “Where two or three are gathered in My name,
there am I among them” (Matthew 18:20). Is a small congregation of 2 or 3 (even 20 or 30) less viable than a congregation where 2000 or 3000 are gathered in His name?
It seems the real issue at hand is “the resources that could
be used” elsewhere—resources that the institution thinks it is better prepared to spend than the local saints who gave and are still giving of their firstfruits.
Perhaps it’s not stubbornness.
Perhaps it’s simply the desire to receive Christ’s gracious gifts from the font, pulpit, and altar consecrated for those very purposes by their forefathers.
