Part of my thought about small churches come from that article — perhaps more properly the associated commentary — from minister and academic Ryan Burge. His pastorate, First Baptist Church, Mount Vernon, Illinois closed July 21. Lots of little churches are dying, and I know one or another of the news pieces are stirring feelings of fear and apprehension.
The broader coverage may be read without a paywall from Religion News:
https://religionnews.com/2024/07/22/in-small-town-illinois-a-little-church-says-goodbye
Deseret News seems to have the commentary without the paywall:
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2024/07/25/ryan-burge-church-closing-the-nones
I hear the story of a shrinking church within a shrinking town, and know that’s hard to overcome. (Mount Vernon has been declining in population since the 1990 census.) This is the formula the decimated the Universalists in the decade either side of 1920. That church made the decision it must, and many others will too. But I can’t help wonder what would have been different if that church had a smaller building, a history of acceptable dormancy (such as closing over the winter) or a practice of other than a professional or residential (or both) minister. Once lost, it’s hard to create something new, and now rather than a thinner church there is none at all.
I know a lot of shrinking churches. Our family is tangentially involved in a nearby Moravian church (they have a good Sunday school program). Their longtime pastor retired last year and it’s taking quite awhile to find a replacement. In the meantime they all volunteer giving sermons on Sunday mornings and have special guests from time to time. I’ve kind of wondered whether some of these churches might consider just going all-in on a Quaker model, at least for a time. As you say, it is a way of keeping the congregation alive. The Quaker meeting I belong to was down to just *two* regular attenders just a few years ago and is bouncing back now. It’s been so much easier to build it back than it would be to start something new.
There are lots of options, but how many of those would be interpreted as failure rather than creativity or faithfulness?
There are lots of options, but how many of those would be interpreted as failure rather than creativity or faithfulness?
This is a topic I am very interested in.
Yes, I think congregations with smaller buildings are going to be more likely to survive. There is an efficiency to having a small footprint, and that makes the religious work more sustainable.
I also admire certain small and sometimes rural churches I’ve known that have a practice of meeting only seasonally (I know one that meets Easter through the Sunday after Thanksgiving); or only 1 or 2 times per month. The synagogue near my home only meets once per month, plus special holy days. And they’ve shown an ability to sustain themselves over the long-haul in a small Indiana town (their building is also small).
I also wish that more congregations outside the Episcopal Church were comfortable with spoken (non-musical) liturgies. You can have a very engaging worship experience with well chosen responsive readings, unison prayers/affirmations, periods of contemplative silence, and time-tested rituals. I’m not at all fond of singing along to pre-recorded music. The accompaniment is usually off (sometimes in ways that are jarring), because the recording can never actually “lead” the singing by adjusting (faster, slower, louder, softer) to the congregation.