Will We See a Transition toward Small Churches?

I don't know the answer to the question in the title. I am not a prophet, and given that very few foresaw two months ago what we are experiencing now, there perhaps should be a healthy skepticism of anyone who pretends to know what or when the next state of normalcy looks like. However, it appears that big crowds may remain a big problem for some time. This fascinating interview with Bob Costas (the portion relevant to this discussion starts several minutes in) for the prospects of the return of professional and collegiate sports any time this calendar year could be described as pessimistic but not obviously wrong, and many national trade organizations who have relied as a staple of personal identity, not to mention revenue, on large national and statewide meetings also now find those at significant risk. Many churches obviously pack in large numbers of people in relatively small spaces on a regular basis, and those may be deemed risky beyond the time when most businesses that are less crowded begin to open their doors again.

It is important to note that the worst of the COVID-19 outbreaks in the U.S. and elsewhere have been in places where people can't spread out: large cities such as New York where transit and other aspects of life place people in close proximity, nursing homes (recognizing age and health condition also to be relevant), cruise ships, sporting events, weddings and funerals, church services, and so forth. If much of economic life attempts a comeback, but crowded places remain suspect farther into the future, those types of gathering places will require evaluations (hopefully self-evaluation rather than government mandate, but we have seen instances of irresponsibility that will encourage the government to act).

Church growth experts have long warned that church sanctuaries that are 80% full are for all practical purposes maxed out and churches that reach that level of saturation will begin to decline. Will churches need to rethink that percentage to a lower number in the future? Will seating need to be altered to allow smaller crowds in the same size of sanctuaries? Will more churches go to multiple Sunday morning services to reduce crowding? What about classroom space? Will more churches limit growth beyond a medium size by starting additional congregations to disperse Christians geographically? Are churches truly welcoming if older persons or those with comorbidities are put at risk by attending a crowded facility?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I hope that they are being asked. Worshipping with a congregation for a month or two via videoconferencing is difficult; it will be more challenging for churches if they have to extend that for a much longer time -- or if they don't make changes and have an outbreak of sickness and mortality within their congregations.

I attend a small church, but our seating is extremely tight. That is a reminder that large churches may experience the biggest impact, but medium and small size churches will have questions to answer as well.

And, this post doesn't pretend to know the answers. Perhaps three months from now this whole thing will be in the rear view mirror and life will go back to what it was like the first of the year. Perhaps. However, secular organizations are busily preparing contingency plans for all sorts of possibilities. Churches would be foolish to fail to do the same.

The Tempting of the Church in America

Thirty years ago, Robert Bork published his account of the rejection of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court under the title "The Tempting of America." Given the direction evident at the time, it hardly took a prophet to realize that Mr. Bork's jeremiad over the politicization of the court would come to pass. Nonetheless, one should not be stingy, and regardless of his other virtues or defects, Judge Bork was right about this: the court, at the hands of both liberals and Trump supporters, is today more widely regarded as a political than a legal institution. Such accrues to the nation's detriment.

These admittedlly old thoughts come to mind afresh upon reading about Albert Mohler's public declaration of his intent to vote for the aforementioned Trump in the upcoming election. Rev. Mohler, in fact, has declaimed the possibility that he will ever vote for a Democrat. For those who do not know, Dr. Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, long considered the flagship of Southern Baptist institutions, and it seems that he may be elected president at the next session of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Mohler also is associated with a parachurch group of some influence, The Gospel Coalition, among those commonly referred to as being "young, restless, and reformed."

Mohler's ringing endorsement will undoubtedly tickle the ears of those who support the president, and others will say he made a bad choice. While this blogger has his own views of that -- of note to what follows, those views are not being written here or elsewhere -- the debate over whether Mohler made the right choice veers away from a far more interesting discussion that merits attention, though it rarely receives it. That discussion centers around this:

Why would Albert Mohler, who is widely regarded as a representative of the church, need to express an electoral political preference at all?

Those responsible for politicizing the federal courts have viewed it as a matter of relevance, and those that continue to drag the church into American electoral politics do the same. However, it is not noted frequently enough that church ministers are ambassadors, not of any temporal earthly kingdom, but representing the inbreaking of the age that is coming. God's ambassadors announce the inbreaking of another, eternal kingdom as a pronouncement of judgment on earthly kingdoms which are necessarily time limited. While the inbreaking kingdom has things to say about judgment and mercy to the time limited ones, in fact, the inbreaking kingdom moves among its citizens across geographic borders and includes persons of every people and tribe and nation. The ultimate message is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and is followed by a command: be reconciled to God.

Again, in the course of declaring God's word regarding justice and mercy in the present age, there are things to be said addressing political matters. That said, the church is most relevant when it understands it belongs neither to the left or the right, but to the age that is coming, the one that is both here and not yet here in its fullness. The interest in relevance through temporal political power is a temptation, and those ministers who embrace it are guilty of dereliction of duty before the King whose glory shall have no end.