Church Revitalization – 7 Innovative Models 

September 23, 2024

Church revitalization is the process of a congregation working together to become more sustainably healthy, internally independent, and increasingly impactful. 

It is often required in older, declining congregations that had their last “heyday” decades ago. These churches are often smaller in size and mirror the aging communities around them that are declining in population as well. If things stay on their current trajectory, most of these churches are worried they might need to close. 

Thousands of churches across the country need revitalization. In fact, seven in 10 churches in the United States now have an attendance of less than 100 people1, and, notably, the average age of senior pastors is now 60 years old2

Twenty years ago, the median attendance of a church was 137 people. Today, it is 65. The decrease in church membership and the increase in average age can create tensions unique to revitalization. In addition, most of the pastors leading these churches are underpaid, over-stressed, and underappreciated. While this kind of leadership can be difficult, there are a few different paths forward. The following are seven primary models I see deployed in church revitalization. 

1. The Restart Model

These churches determine they have a compelling heart for their surrounding community, and at least a small core of the church wants to undergo a radical transformation to treat the church much like a church plant, utilizing some of the soft and hard assets of the church to support the birth of a mostly new congregation. The church may or may not meet in the current facility or keep the same name. Overall, this is a massive change and one that Thom Rainer calls “covenantal revitalization” for a reason: Everyone involved really needs to covenant together to leave behind the old way and start over.

2. The Own-Who-We-Are Model

These churches look at who they are and turn perceived weaknesses into strengths. They capitalize on their uniqueness and focus on the opportunities it might afford them. For example, they might have an old-school “revival hymn-sing” style worship and say, “OK, we’re going to do that super well and not try to do something different. Those who like that might worship with us.” This model only works if the people in the church intentionally invite people like them to the church. That means if the church is full of 60 to 80-year-old people, then they are reaching out and bringing in their peers to the church all the time.

3. The Stage-First Model

These churches don’t change everything about the church, but they do change everything about the stage of the church. They revamp the worship, preaching, and sometimes even the physical space “up front” to ensure the presentation of the gospel is on point. This approach is highly dependent on the pastor leading the church and the volunteers he or she can recruit to transform the church’s worship. This is often a more viable model if that minister is a gifted worship leader. The leaders in this situation understand that while other parts of the church need addressing, this is what they can shore up first. 

4. The Both/And Model

These churches keep the primary expression of worship the same but then support very innovative and “outside the box” church ministries, microchurches, and outreach in the surrounding area. A church like this might have a traditional, old-school worship service happening at 10 a.m. in their 1960s-era architecture building. However, at the same time, they may also have a small group meeting in the local tattoo shop, a few house churches led by people in their 20s, and a microchurch that meets after playing volleyball at a local beach bar on Wednesdays. Best described in Michael Adam Beck’s book Deep Roots, Wild Branches, these churches start to build a missional network. 

5. The Merger Model

These churches try revitalizing by merging and joining forces to ensure long-term viability. They often report gratefulness that one church had strengths that were the weakness of the other, and vice-versa. The first might have a good facility while the second’s facility was poor. The second had a pastor when the first did not. Or one had a good children’s ministry, and the other had a great worship leader who helped blend the service styles well. In these cases, the theory is that 1+1 = 3… and they can become stronger together than apart. The prayer is that a merger can lead to a new identity and vision for the future.

6. The Campus/Adoption Model

These churches develop a relationship with a larger church in their area or region and either officially merge with that church, becoming a campus of the other congregation, or are adopted for a season and given the necessary resources to be viable once again. Sometimes, the larger church supplies preaching via video, or they might send some rotating worship leadership teams to the adopted church. The key factors here come down to the ownership of the facility, the membership of the revitalizing church, and how everyone feels losing some sense of independence as they become dependent on the larger church.

7. The Reinvestment Model

Sometimes, the choice to revitalize is delayed to make a new investment in the Kingdom. These are churches that don’t have the will or ability to go through the long-term process of revitalization. Instead, they determine they will have an intentional season of celebrating the church’s history and then close their doors by reinvesting their assets (primarily the facility and land assets) into the future ministry of the network of churches in their district or denomination. This allows the older saints of the church to see the longer-term fruit of any new church or church-planting efforts.  

Conclusion 

There is good news for churches engaging in any of these seven models. The Hartford Institute for Religion Research studied the commonalities of revitalized churches that succeeded in their aims. They found that congregations that grow and show spiritual vitality are more likely to have the following qualities, which I’ve adapted here:

  • Strong leadership aligned with congregational needs
  • Established a compelling mission
  • Embraced change and open to innovation
  • Local engagement that supported the community
  • Vibrant, thought-provoking worship services
  • Increased ethnic diversity
  • Newcomers were welcomed well
  • Lay involvement increased
  • Members lived out their faith in everyday life.3

The size of a church doesn’t create a disadvantage in any of these qualities. In fact, some of them may be easier to accomplish in a smaller congregation. Perhaps once a culture change is underway in a small church aiming to revitalize, a corresponding momentum shift could propel them to make changes faster. A large church can feel like an aircraft carrier to steer, whereas a small church can, sometimes, turn like a small sailboat. 

While these seven models might not be exhaustive, they will provide a starting point for thinking innovatively about the future of the church, especially those churches in need of revitalization.  

NOTES

  1. Lifeway Research – https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/
  2. Covid Religion Research – https://www.covidreligionresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Epic-4-2.pdf
  3. Faith Communities Today survey, Hartford Institute for Religion Research. https://faithcommunitiestoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Faith-Communities-Today-2020-Summary-Report.pdf