| Have you ever
noticed how different people are, how each one had a different
personality? How some were joyful and others were mellow? How
some were self-motivated, but others could not be motivated
by any one or any thing? Of course you have. Everyone notices
that. But did you ever think churches were the same way?
Since I began specializing in church architecture,
I have noticed how different each congregation that I have come
in contact with is. Each one seems to have a different personality,
and no two seem to be alike.
Their personalities are revealed through different
individuals or groups of people. The building committees I have
met with tend to reflect the make-up of the congregation. I
have found it very interesting that when I meet with people
in the congregation, or watch how they worship, or how they
interact with each other, they seem as similar as a group as
the people on the building committee do as a group.
Some churches are very business-like, and want
to conduct their building projects in a very organized fashion,
according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
Others are fun-loving and loose with rules,
but tend to have as much or more drive to get the project done.
Some are very stoic, and don’t make decisions
very easily, or even very well. Their progress is usually a
very slow, carefully measured effort.
Still others are the nervous type; they worry
about every detail or about what the people in the congregation
will think of their decision.
Some are even fearful, even when they know that
there is a desparate need to do a particular project.
If there is any similarity all, it is usually
along denominational lines, although that doesn’t always seem
to make difference.
The one thing that is almost always present
in each congregation is that one person emerges as a leader.
When there is a job to be done, at least one person will recognize
the need and step up to the plate.
Sometimes that person is a good leader; sometimes
he or she is not. The good leaders will guide the congregation
into a project and see it successfully through to completion.
The poor leaders will hold countless meetings, but after accomplishing
little over a long period of time, will usually put things on
hold and never do anything again. In both cases, the congregation
will usually accept their actions.
Eight years ago I decided to specialize in church
architecture. I haven’t kept count, but I suppose that during
that time I have had contact with hundreds of churches.
Each time, when I met with all those churches,
it was almost immediately evident what that church’s personality
was like. There are generally two things that give me a feel
for what that church’s personality is like.
Though this may seem a bit superficial, I have
found that you can read the church by what their building looks
like, just like you can tell what some people are like by the
way they dress.
You can get a good feel for what the congregation
is like by looking at their leadership and by looking at how
the congregation interacts as a group with that leadership.
With all of the different personalities that
congregations have, how can we expect the church as a whole
to thrive? How has the church survived and even grown in America
as it has over the past 5 centuries, when only a few congregations
are the leaders, that is, the ones that become large?
The truth is, all congregations are important,
regardless of their size. Just as there are only a few people
in life who become “important” or famous, there are probably
only going to be relatively few congregations that become “important”
or famous (i.e., large).
I believe God looks at every congregation as
an individual. This is demonstrated in Revelation 2 & 3
where Jesus speaks to the seven churches. He praised or criticized
each one of them as a congregation for their accomplishments
or their faults. But regardless of their stature with Him, He
expected certain performance levels from each one.
Churches could accomplish so much more if they
could come to grips with who they are and what their congregational
personality was; in that way, each one could build on its strengths
and make improvements to its weaknesses.
|
