An Uncomfortable Truth
Is it possible that the Father desires for leadership, denominational and local church, to proactively close unsustainable and unfruitful churches? This is not a discussion we want to have, but one we should be having. Let’s take a few minutes and investigate this.
Then Jesus told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
“‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’” Luke 13:6-9 (NIV)
Some parables are easy to understand. This parable was not one of those for me. I’ve read it many times and thought about who each character is in the story. It seems obvious to me that the vineyard’s owner was God the Father. However, the gardener who took care of the garden and the fig tree itself, who are they? One day during my devotional time, I gained insight into a spiritual principle that this parable illustrated. What I learned and what I discovered set me on a long journey of observation, study, prayer, and research.
That morning, while reading Luke 9, the characters in the story came alive. God the Father owned the vineyard in which the fig tree grew. The fig tree was a local church, and the gardener was the local pastor or denominational leader. God the Father came to the vineyard, inspected the tree, and looked for fruit, but found none. He responds, “I have come to the vineyard for three years now, looking for fruit on this tree, but there is none. Cut it down.” The following phrase stood out to me, as if highlighted on the page: “Why should it use up the soil?” Why should resources be used to feed this tree that bears no fruit? The gardener says, “Give me one more year. Let me work hard, tend to the tree, and fertilize it. If there is no fruit next year, then cut it down.” And the story ends. We don’t know the outcome because the result was not what Jesus was communicating.
As I read the parable, I considered the many fruitless churches in all denominations. Local pastors work hard, tend to the church, and fertilize it with passion, energy, new programs, new worship styles, and other innovative ideas, and there is no fruit. Is this fruitless church cut down? No, we bring in another pastor who repeats the process with virtually the same results. And the cycle repeats. That was when my heart was stirred and burdened. Why do denominations not close fruitless churches? Why are they allowed to use up the soil?
Every year, facilities are maintained, salaries are paid, and programs are resourced with volunteer hours and supplies. What are the results? The church has another year of stagnation or decline. No fruit. How long is this to take place? The parable says four years. The owner was ready to cut it down after three years of no fruit, and the gardener asked for one more year. I don’t think this portion of the parable is to be taken literally, but it is a principle that needs to be taken seriously. The Father is looking for fruit from the fig trees in the garden, and those that no longer produce any are to be removed. They are to stop using up the soil.
I have a thought, an uncomfortable thought. Are pastors, local churches, and denominations working so hard to keep their churches open, to maintain buildings, and to minister to the few remaining saints that we are actually in disobedience to the Father? We hope that somehow, by some miracle, this new person can turn this place around and make it healthy again. The thought that pastors and denominations are disobeying God the Father by not cutting down unfruitful trees is a heavy thought for me. But it is this thought that has been on my mind for decades.
What is the Father’s heart and desires for all of the small dying churches of every stripe? I think I know the answer: close the churches. But if that was the answer, how does it get worked out in real life? How does it play out in the lives of the 15 people who have invested for decades in their church? How does it play out for the 78-year-old woman who has worshiped in a local church for 50 years? Her husband’s funeral was conducted there, one of her daughters was married there, and she had imagined her funeral being undertaken there. How do you tell her that the lack of fruit means this church is “no longer going to be using up the soil” and will be closed? It is my suspicion, which was backed up by research, that this is one of several main reasons churches are not closed. However, I keep returning to the parable and wonder if the owner will accept that reason as sufficient to prevent the fig tree from being cut down.
This parable requires us to ask another question: what is fruit? What is it that the owner comes looking for on the fig tree? Figs are the obvious answer. It is a fig tree. But what does God come looking for when he looks for fruit from a local congregation? Defining this kind of fruit is more challenging. Is fruit doors open, programs functioning, and people in relationships with each other caring for one another?
Is fruit pastoral care for the ill, the preaching of messages each week, the ministry of the sacraments or ordinances, depending on how you define these, or the regular prayer times devoted to praying over the church and community? Should fruit be defined as salvations, water baptisms, first-time guests who become regular attendees, new members, growth in Sunday morning or small group attendance, or a balanced budget with money in the bank? How each congregation or denomination defines fruit makes a difference in how this parable will be applied to local churches.
After a definition of fruit is agreed upon, what length of time should be given after this fruit ceases for it to be restored? The parable provides a time frame of three years, with a fourth year of grace. Whether this is literal or should be considered symbolic, just like the fruit is figurative, is unclear; however, a time frame must be established. If there are no expectations, defined fruit, a quantity of fruit that needs to be produced, and a time frame in which that fruit needs to manifest, encouragement to keep trying and praying that things will turn around is all that is necessary. But if a requirement of fruitfulness is in place, then we come to the “cut it down and stop letting it use up the soil” dilemma.
No one wants to go in and close churches, even when it is evident that they are ineffective and unfruitful. The unfruitful congregation is often composed of good, loving, dedicated people who have invested in this church for years. These people will now be displaced and will undoubtedly be hurt by the closing of their church. It is easier to allow them to maintain until they can no longer survive. I am convinced that the Father is asking us to consider doing things a different way. He is asking us to remove, intentionally and compassionately, that which is fruitless.
How are we to proceed? That is the question that I have been pondering and am seeking to solve. How can churches be compassionately and intentionally closed when they no longer bear fruit after much effort has been made to revitalize them? This is what I believe the Father is speaking through this parable.
I believe it is God’s will to close places that have not borne fruit for a significant time. I also believe it is His will to teach us how to do this in a way that honors Him and ministers compassionately to those who are impacted.
He calls us to seek Him for wisdom—both in discerning when it is time and in determining how to walk that path well.
It is time to change the conversation.
Closing Churches Well exists not only to help churches close well, but to walk alongside pastors and congregations as they navigate this difficult journey.
If you would like to talk about your circumstances, we are here to listen.