History of Theological Education and Ministry Training in New England

Emmanuel Gospel Center

New Beginnings: A History of Innovations in Protestant Theological Education and Ministry Training in New England

by Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher, Applied Research

Boston and New England have long pioneered innovative models for training pastors, Christian workers, and missionaries, exerting national and international influence on theological education. While some trends in this region have followed cultural and philosophical influences away from biblical orthodoxy, others have strongly supported world evangelism and church growth. By examining the enduring strengths of New England’s innovative approaches, one can discern key principles to guide the future of theological education in Greater Boston, ensuring it remains both adaptive and impactful.

The Days Before Harvard: Theological Education of Boston’s Early Pastors

Understanding the educational background of Boston’s early church leaders offers insight into their approach to differing views and how they designed Harvard College’s program. All first-generation Puritan pastors in Boston attended English universities, and most of the first-generation Boston-area pastors studied at Cambridge University, followed by some pastoral experience in England.

The first three leaders of Harvard all attended colleges at Cambridge University. Nathaniel Eaton and Charles Chauncey attended Trinity College, and Henry Dunster attended Magdalene College. Although Boston-area pastors attended several colleges at Cambridge University, a number of influential leaders, including John Wilson, John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, and John Harvard, attended Emmanuel College, founded in 1584 to train young men for the Protestant ministry. It had become an influential center of Puritan education. Cambridge University, therefore, became a fertile seedbed for the growth and education of a large cohort of future New England pastors and leaders.

Laurence Chaderton, a key figure in the Puritan movement, was the Master of Emmanuel College from 1584 to 1622, during which time almost all of the Boston-area graduates of Emmanuel attended. The pastors of the First Churches of Boston, Cambridge, and Charlestown all studied at Emmanuel College. A few pastors, namely the early pastors of the First Church of Dorchester, studied at Oxford University, which was quite similar to Cambridge University at this time. Typically, these early clergy also held a Master of Arts degree, which was conferred on holders of the Bachelor of Arts degree from Cambridge and Oxford after a period of three years, without any further prescribed coursework. Although students, such as John Cotton, spent additional time studying or teaching at the university, others mostly pursued independent study while serving in a parish, since there was no strict residential requirement.

“Boston and New England have long pioneered innovative models for training pastors, Christian workers, and missionaries, exerting national and international influence on theological education.”

The methods of learning at Cambridge were later followed by Harvard. These included lectures, recitations, disputations, declamations, formal sermons, meetings with tutors, and private study. All the formal parts of this education took place in Latin. Students also learned Greek and sometimes Hebrew for Old Testament study.

At Cambridge University, the lectures were organized around questions and articles, with topics and subtopics arranged in a hierarchy of ideas. Public lectures were delivered in the Old Schools,¹ and private lectures were given in the colleges. Lecturers were expected to give four lectures a week (although some seemed to be negligent in this).² The public lectures included theology, medicine, and civil law, among other subjects. Biblical studies, Greek and Latin classics, and mathematics were emphasized. “Lecturers in language, philosophy, dialectics, and rhetoric were held to five lectures per week.”³

Student recitations were oral exercises in which students recited memorized material from texts or previous lectures, translated texts, or explained and defended interpretations. Disputations were informal and formal debates between students. The formal debate sessions lasted four hours, Monday through Friday, during Lent, and were full of ritual, rules, and traditions. Each student was required to participate in four formal debates for the B.A. degree. Students also had to give “declamations” or set speeches in Latin. It was expected that these would exhibit good style and draw quotations from the Greek and Latin classics.

Emmanuel College, Cambridge, England (DAVID ILIFF via Wikimedia Commons. License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)

Students would keep notebooks called “Commonplace Books” with their selection of quotations and information on various subjects. Ministerial students would also deliver “Clerums,” formal sermons preached to the clergy on set days. Tutors played an important role in the educational system, providing academic and moral guidance and oversight.

A Cambridge education in this period “was dialectical, Aristotelian, and highly systematized. It was concerned with logic, logical formulations, and disputations.”⁴ This led to an eagerness “to divide truth from error” and to win debates with adversaries.⁵

One can see how the elements and tendencies of this educational background carried over to Boston, where disputations on doctrine and Christian practice were common. This educational experience also shaped Puritan leaders’ planning when they developed Harvard College. Some of the strengths of this education were its preparation of students to study the Bible in the original languages, to engage in clear and effective reasoning, and to speak in public.       

A Theological School for the Commonwealth: Harvard College (later Harvard Divinity School)

Harvard was established to make sure New England had a well-educated clergy. In 1636, Harvard was founded to “advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity: dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”⁶

Henry Dunster, a graduate of Emmanuel College, Cambridge University, became president in 1640 and developed a course of study adapted from his alma mater. Since instruction and discourse were in Latin, students were required to know Latin before admission. They could prepare for college through private tutoring or at one of the early Latin schools: Boston Latin School (1635), Charlestown School (1636), Mather School in Dorchester (1639), Roxbury Latin School (1645), or Cambridge Latin School (1648).

Greek and Hebrew studies were emphasized in the first two years by daily classes. The purpose of this rigorous language study was to enable students to study the classics and exegete Scripture. The overall curriculum was still centered on the Trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music theory, astronomy), along with a focus on biblical studies and theology (using The Marrow of Theology by William Ames as a text).

Massachusetts Hall, Harvard University, built in 1720 (Daderot via Wikimedia Commons)

In the first two years, students studied basic mathematics and ethics, as well as logic, using the textbook The Dialectics by Peter Ramus, and rhetoric, using examples from Cicero and Quintilian, to prepare for “declamations” (set speeches in Latin). As they advanced to their third and fourth years, students studied Calvinistic theology, natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysics. They engaged in weekly “disputations” (debates), prepared sermons, and studied some practical theology.⁷

Once the first college building was completed, teachers and students lived together, sharing meals, prayers, and recreation. Although there were fewer tutors or teachers, the teaching methods were similar to those at Cambridge University, with disputations, lectures, daily recitations, declamations, and discussions with tutors. Students were expected to engage in daily prayers and devotions, and to learn the catechism.

“After God had carried us safe to New England and we had builded our houses, provided necessaries for our livelihood, reared convenient places for God’s worship, and settled the civil government: One of the next things we longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”

— New England's First Fruits

By 1654, Harvard had 50 students. Further ministerial preparation took place after students received their Bachelor’s degrees. “A few students remained at Harvard to read for the Master’s degree, while most apprenticed with local ministers,” and continued independent study. “About half of Harvard students entered the ministry until about 1720.”⁸

In 1805, Henry Ware was chosen as the Hollis Professor of Theology, signaling a shift toward Unitarianism and theologically liberal views at Harvard. Since the Hollis Professorship of Theology was a key influential position, this was a watershed moment. This change played a role in the founding of Andover Theological Seminary and in the establishment of other later seminaries. In 1816, Harvard Divinity School became a separate school of the university.

Carrying the Torch: Yale College

In 1701 the Collegiate School, known as Yale College after 1718, in Connecticut was founded with a clear purpose: “The founding, suitably endowing & ordering of a Collegiate School within his Majesties Colony of Connecticut wherein Youth may be instructed in the Arts & Sciences who through the blessing of Almighty God may be fitted for Publick employment in both Church and Civil State.”⁹

Divinity College at Yale before 1870 (Wikimedia Commons)

Ten ministers, led by James Pierpont, took the initiative in bringing the plan to found Yale to the general assembly of Connecticut. They were given funding and the authority to direct its affairs. All but one of these ten founders of Yale were Harvard graduates. During the first several years under the leadership of the Rev. Abraham Pierson, students met together at his church, and instruction was not unlike pastoral mentoring taking place elsewhere during the eighteenth century.

Once the school was firmly established, the early curriculum followed Harvard’s curriculum of the latter 1600s and emphasized theology, the biblical languages, and Bible study. In its early years, Yale was largely focused on training ministers, and even later, when it broadened its focus, the school still trained many influential pastors and theologians: “Whereas almost three-quarters of the early graduates entered the ministry, that proportion fell to around one-half from the 1720s onward.”¹⁰

“By examining the enduring strengths of New England’s innovative approaches, one can discern key principles to guide the future of theological education in Greater Boston, ensuring it remains both adaptive and impactful. ”

Those influencing the founding of the college were interested in maintaining the pure Calvinism of the earlier Puritans, since some believed Harvard was becoming liberal in its theology. However, in the decades to follow, Yale would be influenced by revivals and new intellectual currents from England and elsewhere. Jonathan Edwards, a very influential graduate (1720), was a key leader in the First Great Awakening, and Lyman Beecher (1797) was a leader in later revivals in Boston. Jonathan Edwards’ grandson, Timothy Dwight, served as President from 1797 to 1817. His talented and spiritual leadership led to major growth of the college, curriculum improvements, spiritual revival, and influential theological movements, such as the New Divinity and New England Theology under Nathanael Taylor.

A separate Theology Department, which later became Yale Divinity School, was founded in 1822, and Nathaniel Taylor became the professor of theology.

A Broader Table: Brown University

In 1764, Brown University was founded as Rhode Island College. Although the school was open to students of any religious belief, the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches had appointed Baptist minister the Rev. James Manning to be President, and Baptist leaders revised the Rev. Ezra Stiles’ draft of the charter for Rhode Island College to ensure Baptists had majority control of the school’s governing bodies.

University Hall at Brown University (Wikimedia Commons)

While the college was not designed specifically to train ministers, 43 of its early graduates did become pastors.¹¹ In the early decades, Latin was the common language in most classes and discussions. While theology was not specifically taught, future ministers benefited from Brown’s emphasis on public speaking, orations, and composition. Other parts of the curriculum relevant to their ministerial preparation included logic, Greek and New Testament study, moral philosophy, rhetoric, and general philosophy.¹² The educational methods included recitations from texts, lectures, preparing and delivering orations, and disputations (debates) on various theses. Most of the students ate and lived together in the college hall with the tutors and were required to attend morning and evening prayers in the chapel. This learning environment contributed to a sense of community.

A More Personal School: Pastoral Mentoring in New England

Although some mentoring of young prospective pastors occurred throughout New England’s history, this mode of ministerial training seemed to flourish especially after these early colleges were founded and before the establishment of graduate seminary programs such as Andover Theological Seminary.

New England Christian leaders, such as Jonathan Edwards, provided a model of mentoring young graduates in their homes and churches. Typically, when students who felt called to ministry graduated from college, they would seek to study personally with a prominent pastor who would take in a few students to mentor and guide in their further training for the ministry. For example, in 1736, Joseph Bellamy came to study theology with Edwards and live in the family household. Other students followed Bellamy in the Edwards’ household, including Samuel Hopkins in late 1741. Through their study of theology under Edwards, both Bellamy and Hopkins would later become very influential in New England.

Jonathan Edwards by Henry Augustus Loop (1831-1895) after Joseph Badger (Princeton University Art Museum, Public Domain)

This method of study also enabled the students to grow spiritually and learn from the example of their mentor and his wife in handling family life and practical church concerns. When Hopkins was spiritually dejected, Mrs. Sarah Edwards encouraged him, and her “counsel and example in his early spiritual formation had a lasting impact… Hopkins also admired her ‘excellent way of governing her children,’ bringing them to obey cheerfully… Jonathan also showed the greatest calmness as well as the greatest firmness in his discipline, and as ‘a consequence of this, they revered, esteemed, and loved him.’”¹³ This personal interaction and observation of mature Christians in daily life could be invaluable.

Students mentored in this holistic way received much more than academic information. The Rev. Joseph Bellamy, after settling into a pastorate in Bethlehem, Connecticut, in turn started mentoring many future pastors using questions on theology, evening discussions, and talks. His students would write papers on the questions, and he would respond with corrections or critiques. He had his students give sermons, and they would receive feedback on how to improve. Bellamy strongly encouraged the spiritual life of his students and discussed the joys and trials of ministry with them. Students could observe the pastor in his pastoral duties and could help perform various services in the church. Bellamy served in this way in the latter 1700s and likely had the second-largest number of students of any pastor.¹⁴

“This method of study also enabled the students to grow spiritually and learn from the example of their mentor and his wife in handling family life and practical church concerns.”

Others, like the Rev. Smalley, one of Bellamy’s students, followed a similar pattern of ministerial training. One of the Rev. Smalley’s 30 students was Nathanael Emmons, who became an influential proponent of the New Divinity system of theology and mentored nearly 90 students over the years in Franklin, Massachusetts.¹⁵ Several of the other prominent pastoral mentors of the period from 1750 to 1810 included the Rev. Samuel Hopkins, the Rev. Timothy Dwight, the Rev. Titus Barton, the Rev. Joseph Lathrop, Dr. Charles Backus, and Dr. Asahel Hooker.¹⁶

The pastoral mentoring process had some limitations, including time constraints due to the teacher’s pastoral responsibilities, limited access to books, and the limits of the pastor’s teaching ability and educational background. Nevertheless, this method of ministry training was very important during the period discussed, and has some very valuable elements for any time period.

The Beginnings of the Modern Seminary: Andover Theological Seminary

As Unitarianism gained increasing influence at Harvard and in New England churches in the early 1800s, orthodox Congregationalist leaders grew concerned about the future of sound ministerial training. The appointment of Henry Ware, a Unitarian, as Hollis Professor of Theology at Harvard in 1805 proved to be a watershed moment, prompting several prominent church leaders to pursue the founding of a new school committed to Calvinistic, biblical orthodoxy. Just as Harvard, Yale, and Brown had each been founded in response to a perceived need for faithful Christian education, so this new institution would arise from a similar conviction, and would go on to become the prototype for scores of seminaries founded across America over the next two centuries.

In Andover, Massachusetts, in association with Phillips Academy, the kind of pastoral training that had been flourishing under ministers such as Jonathan Edwards was supported by a scholarship fund. The Rev. Jonathan French mentored groups of students from 1797 to 1808. The Phillips family, who founded Phillips Academy in 1778, planned for the school to teach orthodox Christian doctrine and promote piety and virtue. Although the academy was only a preparatory school, its campus would, in a few decades, become host to Andover Theological Seminary.

The Academy’s first principal was Dr. Eliphalet Pearson. He later became Professor of Hebrew and then interim President of Harvard in the early 1800s. He was opposed to the growing liberal theological and Unitarian movement; therefore, when Henry Ware, a Unitarian, was appointed Professor of Theology at Harvard, Pearson resigned. He returned to Andover and helped spearhead a group seeking to establish a new Calvinistic, orthodox school to train ministers. This Founders Group working in Andover included the Rev. Jedidah Morse, a Charlestown pastor; Mr. Samuel Abbot, a wealthy potential donor; Mrs. Phoebe Phillips and her son, John Phillips, who committed to fund two buildings; Samuel Farrar, a lawyer; the Rev. Jonathan French; and several others.

Andover Theological Seminary by J. Kidder (1813-1823) (Yale University Art Gallery, Public Domain)

Meanwhile, a second group, led by Dr. Samuel Spring of the North Congregational Church in Newburyport, had developed a vision for an orthodox ministry training school. Dr. Spring and potential theology professor, Leonard Woods, had gathered the support of three wealthy “Associate Donors”: Moses Brown, William Bartlett, and John Norris. After lengthy negotiations involving theological differences, financial arrangements, and authority structures to ensure doctrinal fidelity, the two groups merged their vision into one new school at the Phillips Academy campus—the Andover Theological Seminary. Dr. Woods, who was friends with both Dr. Spring and his former teacher, Dr. Pearson, served as a bridge-builder, bringing the two groups to agreement, and was appointed to the important post of Professor of Theology.¹⁷

Founded in 1807, this was the first Protestant graduate-level seminary in America, and it became the prototype for scores of seminaries founded over the next 200 years.

Andover’s approach was a three-year curriculum for college graduates who would live on campus and learn from highly qualified professors in residence. Initially, donors even sponsored and built houses for specific professorships. Early professors besides Dr. Leonard Woods included Moses Stuart (Biblical studies, languages, and exegesis), Dr. Edward Dorr Griffin (rhetoric and preaching), the Rev. Ebenezer Porter (preaching), and Dr. Pearson (natural theology). Students studied Hebrew and Greek, hermeneutics, and the principles of exegesis under Dr. Moses Stuart, who “had a powerful influence in promoting in our country the study of the Scriptures in their original languages.”¹⁸ Other subjects included church history, theology, preaching, rhetoric, and pastoral duties.

“Just as Harvard, Yale, and Brown had each been founded in response to a perceived need for faithful Christian education, so this new institution would arise from a similar conviction, and would go on to become the prototype for scores of seminaries founded across America over the next two centuries.”

Professors experimented with various teaching methods, including recitations followed by the teacher’s explanations, lectures with free discussions and questions, and writing papers.¹⁹ However, Dr. Woods believed the most valuable learning time was the weekly Wednesday evening discussion. These were open discussions on theology and “all matters relating to Christian experience, duty, and comfort.” Moses Stuart led these with Dr. Woods, who said, “We poured out the feelings of our hearts to our beloved students.”²⁰

Professors met with students one-on-one to talk about their spiritual lives, encouraged them to read devotional works, and, in general, placed a high priority on their spiritual growth. Once each term, the seminary would hold a fast with prayer and discussions. Professors such as Dr. Woods would take walks with students, or take groups of six at a time home to a social meal with their families after prayers in the chapel. The professors’ homes were on or near the campus and thus accessible. Andover’s new three-year training process provided extended time for deeper study, access to library resources, housing, and classrooms, while still facilitating personal interaction with the best teachers, who could now devote nearly full-time to their students.

Over the school’s first 38 years, it admitted 1,500 students, and its graduates became pastors, missionaries, and educators, some of whom became presidents, leaders, or founders of other colleges.²¹ During those early years, the faculty and students played a central role in the founding of the pioneering American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) and in the growing American missionary movement. America’s first foreign missionaries were ordained at Tabernacle Congregational Church in Salem, Massachusetts, on February 16, 1812. Those five pioneering missionaries—Adoniram Judson, Gordon Hall, Luther Rice, Samuel Nott, and Samuel Newell—were all graduates of Andover Theological Seminary, which had nurtured their missionary zeal and supported their efforts to establish the ABCFM.

The First Baptist Seminary: Newton Theological Institute

Under the leadership of Dr. Thomas Baldwin, pastor of the Second Baptist Church of Boston, area Baptists founded the Massachusetts Baptist Education Society in 1814 to help financially support students called to the ministry. This organization advanced the idea that Baptist pastors would benefit from more education.

By May 1825, the Society’s executive committee and Baptist ministers were ready to found a theological school “where the combined powers of two or three or more men of experience, and men of God, can be employed in instructing and forming the manners and habits and character of pious young men for the work of the ministry.”²² From this statement, one can discern the important goal of students’ spiritual formation, not just intellectual instruction.

Colby Hall, Newton Theological Institute (John Phelan, 2011, via Wikimedia Commons)

The planning committees moved rapidly, purchasing the 85-acre Peck Estate on a hill in Newton for the campus and hiring the Rev. Irah Chase as Professor of Biblical Theology. The Rev. Chase, who was a graduate of Andover Theological Seminary, began teaching in November at the new Newton Theological Institute.²³ The following year, Dr. Henry J. Ripley, also an Andover graduate (1819), became Professor of Biblical Literature and Pastoral Duties. Since both professors were products of Andover, it is not surprising that this new school developed a three-year curriculum and educational process somewhat like that of their alma mater.

The students took courses in Biblical literature, church history, Biblical theology, and pastoral duties. One of the central goals for students was to understand the Bible clearly and teach its lessons effectively. “Newton became the first freestanding post-graduate Baptist seminary to be established in North America, the first Baptist graduate school of any kind.”²⁴ In 1849, Dr. Alvah Hovey began his long and influential career as a professor and later as President of Newton. He continued to defend orthodox theology throughout the last half of the nineteenth century.

A New School for Congregationalists: Hartford Theological Seminary

As the New England Theology was gaining ground, an opposing Pastoral Union group of “Old Calvinist” pastors in Connecticut founded the Theological Institute of Connecticut in East Windsor in 1834. This seminary would later move to Hartford and change its name to Hartford Theological Seminary.

Hosmer Hall, Hartford Theological Seminary (1889) (Wikimedia Commons)

Like Andover, the new seminary, led by Dr. Bennet Tyler, offered a three-year course of study for college graduates. They came from several different states, but were often graduates of Amherst College, Williams College, and Yale College. Tuition, rooms, and the library were free, and by 1843, the school building had rooms for 52 students. By that year, 62 students had graduated and gone on to become pastors or missionaries.²⁵ Although students studied several subjects each year, including church history, the first year emphasized Biblical interpretation, the second year systematic theology, and the third year sacred rhetoric and pastoral theology.²⁶

Ministry Training for Methodists: Boston University School of Theology

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, most Methodist pastors did not attend a college or seminary for ministerial training. They basically learned on the job with some guidance from the presiding elder, or district superintendent, and in some places, a list of books to read.

Although Wesleyan College (later University) of Middletown, Connecticut, was originally Methodist, it was not founded to specifically train pastors: “From 1831 to 1870 Wesleyan was a local evangelical enterprise promoted by a town that provided land and buildings and by a few Methodist clergy and laymen who extracted very limited support from a denomination having only a nascent interest in higher education.”²⁷ The school did have Christian objectives, and undoubtedly some Methodist leaders did receive a general college education there, although not specialized ministerial training.

After several years of debate, Methodist leaders at a convention in Boston in 1839 were ready to propose the establishment of a theological school. This group approved the establishment of a seminary and decided to work with and support a new program to be part of a school in Newbury, Vermont. Under the leadership of Osmon C. Baker, the program, called the Newbury Theological Institute, trained pastors until 1847.

“It is intended that the student shall do something more than merely memorize text-books. Whenever a branch of science or a portion of a branch, can be best taught by a fresh original handling...the professors will not shrink from the additional labor which such methods necessarily involve.”

— Annual Report of the School of Theology of Boston University, 1873

At that time, the students, finances, and library were moved to Concord, New Hampshire, and under a new charter, the school became independent with the new name, Methodist General Biblical Institute (also called the Concord Biblical Institute). John Dempster, a former missionary, became the President, while Osman Baker moved and continued to teach.²⁸ Even in this early period, the seminary had some emphasis on missionary work.²⁹ With the rapid growth of Methodism and the development of a more robust program, the Institute flourished in Concord over the next 20 years.

In 1867, the school relocated to Boston and reorganized as the Boston Theological Seminary. Meanwhile, over the next few years, Methodist leaders were working to establish Boston University, with plans to create four professional and graduate schools. In 1871, the seminary became part of the new university as its first professional school.

The school was designed to have a regular three-year ministerial course and also a three-year course in missionary work. The curriculum had four major sections: exegetical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology. Exegetical theology included the study of Hebrew, Greek, exegesis, and archaeology. Special studies were offered in various other languages—including Spanish and Asian languages for missions—plus music, German theology, and medical topics for missions.

Boston University Marsh Chapel (John Phelan, 2011, via Wikimedia Commons)

Teachers were encouraged to use fresh and varied methods of instruction: “It is intended that the student shall do something more than merely memorize text-books. Whenever a branch of science [knowledge] or a portion of a branch, can be best taught by a fresh original handling in the way of written lectures, or by free exposition, or by black-board exercise, or by a Socratic method, or by a combination of any or all of these, the professors will not shrink from the additional labor which such methods necessarily involve.”³⁰

Spiritual life was encouraged by three prayer meetings each week and morning and evening devotions. Missions was generally emphasized, and students were encouraged to attend the meetings of the Missionary Association. The school was a pioneer among seminaries in admitting women. Anna Howard Shaw and Helen Magill White were among the early graduates in the 1870s.

The school was innovative in setting up two divisions. The First Division would only accept students who had earned a B.A. degree. After three years of coursework and passing an examination, they would receive a Bachelor of Divinity degree. The Second Division opened access to students who had completed a secondary education but, for various reasons or due to age, had not been able to earn a B.A. degree. These students could receive a diploma after completing the course of study.

While the Boston University School of Theology followed the basic pattern of other three-year residential seminaries, it introduced several innovative policies and was the first theological seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church. By 1871, it was the largest seminary in New England. Much later in the 1930s, the seminary, along with the university, moved from Beacon Hill to a new campus along the Charles River.

Ministry Beyond the Pulpit: New England Deaconess Training School

In 1889, the Methodists initiated another training effort, the New England Deaconess Training School (and Deaconess House), located at 45 East Chester Park in Boston’s South End. This was part of a larger movement, beginning in Europe, to revive the formal lay ministry of deaconesses. The program was designed to educate young women for missionary and service work, especially in the city. Mary E. Lunn, the first superintendent, also advocated for a hospital, and in 1896, she founded New England Deaconess Hospital in a South End brownstone.

“Anna E. Hall, circa 1900”. Anna E. Hall Collection. Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12322/auc.119:0077.

The training school offered courses in theology, church history, and other subjects, including sociology in cooperation with Simmons College after 1900. The school’s first African American graduate, Anna E. Hall, became a missionary educator in Liberia, serving for 24 years as director of a girls’ school and home.³¹ Other deaconesses went on to study at the nursing school associated with the hospital.

In 1918, the Deaconess Training School became a part of Boston University and was renamed the School of Religious Education and Social Service.

An Episcopal School for the Commonwealth: Episcopal Theological School (later Episcopal Divinity School)

In the early nineteenth century, New England Episcopalians who felt called to ministry would often go to New York City to study at the General Theological Seminary. However, a significant number of these students stayed in the New York area after graduation rather than returning to serve in New England. This situation led church leaders in Boston to start planning an Episcopal seminary in Massachusetts. Beginning with a resolution passed at the 1831 Massachusetts Episcopal Convention, several efforts were made over the years to found a theological school in the Boston area.

These efforts failed to bear fruit due to a lack of finances until, finally, in 1867, Benjamin Tyler Reed, a wealthy Boston businessman, committed $100,000 to endow what soon became the Episcopal Theological School.³² He did not want the school to become embroiled in controversies that might arise within the denomination, and so he sought to make it independent of the diocese, its conventions, and its bishop, in part by establishing its trustees as laymen only. They would control temporal matters, while the faculty would have some oversight of theological and academic matters.

Reed called on Dr. Francis W. Wharton, rector of St. Paul’s Church of Brookline, who was a brilliant legal expert, to draw up the school’s constitution, develop its organization, and help gather the first group of faculty. Wharton is thus often considered the founder of the Episcopal Theological School. With his legal background, he emphasized apologetics and Christian evidences in the curriculum. He also taught liturgics, polity, canon law, homiletics, and pastoral care.

Episcopal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Wikimedia Commons)

The Rev. John Seeley Stone, a leader among evangelicals and one of the great preachers of the time, became the dean and professor of systematic divinity (theology). Other courses in the three-year curriculum included Hebrew, Greek, Biblical interpretation, and church history.³³ Dean Stone “opposed what he called the ‘rationalistic tendencies of our time,’ and meant the school to stand as a bulwark of evangelicalism.”³⁴

At the end of the school year, professors conducted oral public examinations of students in all classes. During the first 10 years, a chapel and other buildings were completed at the Brattle Street campus in Cambridge. The student body at that time averaged only about 12 to 15 students. The school followed the general pattern of other seminaries in establishing a three-year, post-college course on a residential campus, but its governing structure was innovative for a seminary serving a specific denomination but outside its power structure.

To the Ends of the Earth: The Bible School and Missionary Training Institute Movement

After experiencing urban revivals in 1842, 1857-58, and 1877-78, Boston contributed to other growing Christian movements, including the Foreign Missions movement, the Holiness or Higher Life movement, and the Faith Cure or Divine Healing movement. Involvement in these movements led to the founding of other training schools. In addition to Boston University School of Theology, other schools with an emphasis on foreign missions included the Faith Training College and the Boston Missionary Training Institute (eventually named Gordon College after its founder).

Charles Cullis (Wikimedia Commons)

One major new development in Christian ministry training was the Bible School and Missionary Training Institute Movement. These schools offered a shorter course of study, emphasizing Bible study, practical ministry training, and spiritual life to prepare men and women for home and foreign missionary work. Although short-lived, the Boston Faith Training College could be considered the pioneering American institution in what became the Bible College Movement (followed by A.B. Simpson’s Missionary Training Institute [Nyack College] in 1882; Moody Bible Institute in 1886-7; and the Boston Missionary Training Institute [Gordon College] in 1889). A. B. Simpson and his institute became very influential in the Bible College Movement and in missions. Simpson, in turn, was greatly influenced by Charles Cullis. “Probably the American educator with the greatest influence upon A. B. Simpson was Dr. Charles Cullis…. Cullis’ Faith Training College convinced Simpson that he could successfully launch a missionary training college.”³⁵ D. L. Moody was also influenced by his Boston contacts and background.

Faith Training College

Dr. Charles Cullis, the leader of a large network of ministries in Boston, the U.S., India, and China, founded the Faith Training College on Beacon Hill in 1875. The Faith Training College described its efforts as “…to train for Christian work such consecrated men and women as are unable to pursue an extended and thorough course of theological study in the various denominational seminaries, but are desirous of fitting themselves for the highest efficiency in the widening fields of lay activity, which the Head of the Church is wonderfully opening in our age, such as Sunday School instruction, Christian Association work, Bible exposition, exhortation, lay preaching, lay evangelism, home and foreign missionary labor” (1875 Annual Report, p. 90).

The Bible college model emphasized a shorter course of study, a focus on the Bible, practical ministry, witness, and missions. Faith Training College was co-educational and tuition-free.

Dr. Cullis, the founder, had also founded the Boston Consumptives (tuberculosis) Home, the Spinal Home, and the Cancer Home, and he was the most prominent national leader of the Divine Healing Movement. Among the college’s teachers was William Boardman, Professor of Christian Life. He ministered throughout Europe and England, spreading the Higher Life Movement and, along with Robert Pearsall Smith, inspiring the Keswick Conference movement. Boardman was a graduate of Yale University and Lane Theological Seminary. Daniel Steele, a graduate of Wesleyan University, was professor of systematic theology, and A. B. Earle was professor of revivalism, a position that was probably unique to Faith Training College. Another professor was Charles Wesley Emerson, the founder of Emerson College.

Boston Missionary Training Institute: Gordon College and Gordon Divinity School (later Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary)

In 1889, Dr. A. J. Gordon, pastor of the Clarendon Street Baptist Church in Boston, founded the Boston Missionary Training Institute to help train Christian men and women for missionary work. Pastor Gordon had been inspired by Dwight L. Moody’s months-long evangelistic campaign next door to his church in 1877 and by the great London conference on foreign missions in 1888.

In 1884, Dr. and Mrs. Grattan Guinness, the directors of the Livingstone Inland Mission in the Congo, had offered the mission to the American Baptist Missionary Union. The Rev. A. J. Gordon became the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Missionary Union and, therefore, was concerned with the Congo mission’s great need for funds and missionary candidates in the late 1880s.³⁶ This was one of the major motives for starting a missionary training school with a short course of studies. Dr. Guinness and the Rev. M. R. Deming of the Bowdoin Square Tabernacle church were also involved in founding the school. Dr. Gordon’s work with Dr. Guinness also would have familiarized him with the details and model of the East London Missionary Training Institute that Guinness had founded in 1873.

“Although many students came from the Boston area, some came from as far away as Kansas, Indiana, and New York.”

Pastor Gordon, like Dr. Cullis at the Faith Training College, saw a need to provide access to ministry training for those who could not follow the rigorous academic path of four years of college and three years of seminary. The school charged no tuition, admitted both men and women, and did not require a high school or college education to enroll. The normal course of study was two years, with classes during the day, but the school also began offering public evening lectures and Bible courses taught by Dr. James M. Gray and Rev. F. L. Chapell. These were attended by hundreds of people.³⁷ Dr. Gray became one of the best-known Bible teachers in the country and later served as President of Moody Bible Institute. Dr. Chapell taught the majority of the core courses during the school’s first ten years.

In some of the early years, women students were in the majority in the daytime classes. Women were also serving as teachers and administrators. Mrs. Maria Gordon served as secretary, treasurer, and a teacher at the school. Other women teachers were Dr. Julia Morton Plummer, Mrs. Susan G. Gray, Mrs. Chapell, and Miss Blanche Tilton.

Adoniram Judson Gordon (Library Company of Philadelphia)

The school emphasized the consecrated spiritual life of the students with daily devotional periods, including testimonies and singing. The classes included theology, missions, comprehensive Bible study, music, and Christian Life and Service. Students engaged in extensive practice in Christian work at Clarendon Street Baptist Church, in their own churches, or in the city.

Although many students came from the Boston area, some came from as far away as Kansas, Indiana, and New York. In the first ten years, 500 students attended day classes, 1,000 to 1,500 benefited from evening classes, and about 50 students, both men and women, went on to serve in foreign missions. Also, 50 students became pastors, and at least 200 went into other Christian work.³⁸

The school went through a number of name changes, but the most noteworthy was when it became the Gordon Bible and Missionary Training School after the death of Dr. A. J. Gordon in 1895. In 1927, the state legislature granted the school the authority to award graduate degrees, and, in 1931, the graduate theological course became the Divinity School of Gordon College. After a number of years in the Fenway area of Boston, the divinity school, followed by the college, moved to Wenham, Massachusetts, in the 1950s.

Multiplying Leaders: Boston Young Men’s Christian Association

In 1851, Boston leaders founded the first YMCA in America following the model of the London YMCA. Although this pioneering organization was never a formal ministry training school, it did have classes and, in various ways, trained young men in biblical study and practical ministries.

In its early decades, the Boston YMCA was clearly Christian and trained young leaders to go out to other towns and cities in Massachusetts and New England to start or support other YMCAs. An 1870 report states, “About 118 of the Associations [local YMCAs] in this country are in Massachusetts. Many calls are made for our young men to address public meetings, conventions, etc.”³⁹ In this process, they also did evangelism, and the Boston YMCA was involved in many evangelistic activities and conventions.

YMCA, Berkeley St., Boston (Wikimedia Commons)

After the Civil War, the work was characterized by spiritual fervor, overflowing prayer meetings, and “quite a number of its members were reported as studying for the ministry.”⁴⁰ Also, in 1885, a YMCA School for Christian Workers was started in Springfield, Massachusetts. It emphasized training YMCA leaders who would lead programs that nurtured the spirit, mind, and body. The school was also notable as the birthplace of basketball. In 1890-91, the name was changed to the International YMCA Training School, which later became Springfield College.

The education department in Boston also grew significantly in the late nineteenth century. Although many of the classes at the Boston YMCA were on practical subjects related to vocations and avocations, there were some Bible classes. By 1896-1898, the education department under Frank Palmer Speare became highly organized into an Evening Institute. The school grew rapidly and evolved, with state approval, in 1916, into Northeastern College, and, in 1922, into Northeastern University, which eventually became independent of the YMCA.

Holiness Unto the Lord: Eastern Nazarene College

Founded as part of the holiness movement in 1900, Eastern Nazarene College was initially called the Pentecostal Collegiate Institute and was located in Saratoga, New York. Lyman C. Pettit served as its first president. Within two years, it moved to North Scituate, Rhode Island. The original plan was to provide a liberal education and ministry training through a preparatory academy, a four-year college, and a seminary.

In the early years, the school was connected to the Association of Pentecostal Churches of America (APCA), a network of Wesleyan-holiness churches. When the APCA merged into the Church of the Nazarene denomination in 1907, the institute became affiliated with the Nazarenes. In 1918, the school was chartered with degree-granting authority in Rhode Island and was renamed Eastern Nazarene College. The following year, it moved to Quincy, Massachusetts, to be near Boston and Harvard University.

Gardner Hall, Eastern Nazarene College (Wikimedia Commons)

The school sought to integrate Christian perspectives across its liberal arts and business curriculum. Although the original plan included a seminary, it was not until 1938 that the school started a graduate program in theology. In 1946, the school was offering 30 courses in Bible and Theology.⁴¹ In 1964, the theology program was replaced by a master's degree program in religion.

The college closed in May 2025 due to financial challenges and a declining student body.

Providence Bible Institute / Barrington College

The roots of Barrington College trace back to Bethel Bible Training School in Spencer, Massachusetts, founded in 1900 by the Baptist pastor, Essex W. Kenyon, who “wanted to train young Christians in the Bible and Christian service.”⁴² Some students went on to be missionaries overseas.

In 1923, the school moved to Dudley, Massachusetts, and was renamed the Dudley Bible Institute. The following year, after Kenyon resigned, Howard W. Ferrin became president (Ferrin’s mentor, Paul Rader, was nominal president in absentia). In 1929, under his leadership, the school moved to Capitol Hill, Providence, Rhode Island, and was renamed Providence Bible Institute.

Barrington College, Barrington, Rhode Island (Kenneth C. Zirkel via Wikimedia Commons)

Ferrin came to the school after serving in a multifaceted ministry with Paul Rader at the Chicago Gospel Tabernacle. He had experience in urban ministry, evangelism, and using radio. Thus, Providence Bible Institute became an urban school within a sphere of multiple ministries that Ferrin developed. In addition to a radio ministry, traveling student music groups, conferences, and evangelistic outreach events, he developed evening Bible schools in Boston, New York City, and Providence.

In 1950, the school purchased a 150-acre campus in Barrington, Rhode Island, for $331,001, winning the bid by one dollar. From 1950 to 1960, the school operated two campuses in Providence and Barrington, but then consolidated its work at Barrington and was renamed Barrington College. In 1985, the college merged with Gordon College and sold the campus to Zion Bible Institute.

Pentecostal Fire: Zion Bible Institute / North Point Bible College

In 1924, the Rev. Christine A. Gibson founded a Pentecostal missionary training school in East Providence, Rhode Island. In its early years, the school was called The School of the Prophets, but in 1936, it was renamed Zion Bible Institute. The school has had an emphasis on studying the Bible and preparing young people for Pentecostal ministry.

Northpoint Bible College

When Barrington College merged with Gordon College in 1985, Zion bought their former campus. Then, in the summer of 2008, the school relocated to the former campus of Bradford College in Haverhill, Massachusetts. David Green, a wealthy Christian businessman, had purchased the campus the year before and gave it to the college for $1.00, along with funds for renovations.⁴³

Bradford College, founded as Bradford Academy in 1803, helped educate a number of missionaries in the nineteenth century, including Ann Hasseltine Judson (Burma), John Taylor Jones (Thailand), and Lucy Goodale Thurston (Hawaii). In 2011, after the move to the Bradford campus, the school received approval to offer a Master of Arts in Practical Theology program that focuses on church planting and revitalization, as well as spiritual formation.⁴⁴ Later, in 2013, Zion officially changed its name to Northpoint Bible College and Graduate School.

Rooted in the City: Theological Training for the People

Boston also developed models for training lay leaders of city churches. Two of these models were the Boston Evening School of the Bible and the Center for Urban Ministerial Education, which has trained both lay leaders and pastors. In addition, many smaller Bible Institutes have been held in local churches, offering courses in Spanish or English.

Boston Evening School of the Bible

In the fall of 1942, Harold J. Ockenga, Pastor of Park Street Church, and Howard W. Ferrin of Providence Bible Institute established the Boston Evening School of the Bible. “It was their desire to help Christian people in all churches, irrespective of denomination, to secure a thorough and systematic knowledge of the Bible and practical training for various kinds of Christian work.”⁴⁵

Classes were held at Park Street Church from November to April, and classes followed a six-year curriculum. Classes thoroughly covered the Bible and also included Christian doctrine, church history, archaeology, evangelism, teacher training, and other ministry topics. The first dean was Dr. Morton C. Campbell, a former professor at Harvard Law School.⁴⁶ Major goals of the School of the Bible were to address biblical and theological illiteracy and to prepare laypeople for church ministry. The average pastor was overburdened and could not provide the depth and range of training needed.⁴⁷ This was not just an enhanced Sunday School, but a major educational program involving hundreds of students and excellent teachers. The successor to this was called the Boston Center for Christian Studies.

“The principles of Theological Education by Extension were developed and adapted in some programs during this period.”

During the period from the 1960s through the 1980s, American cities were experiencing many changes and challenges, and Christians responded with new models of theological education. Cities were going through racial transition, facing many problems, and receiving an influx of new immigrants from Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia. Theological education needed to be contextualized to address urban issues, scheduling constraints of bi-vocational leaders, language needs, and other concerns.

The principles of Theological Education by Extension (TEE)⁴⁸ were developed and adapted in some programs during this period. Several urban training efforts used experiential, action-reflection, or action-training models of urban education. Some examples of urban ministry training programs of that time were the Urban Training Center for Christian Mission (UTC, Chicago), New York Theological Seminary programs led by Bill Webber, Seminary Consortium for Pastoral Education (SCUPE, Chicago), the Center for Urban Theological Studies (CUTS, Philadelphia), and the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME, Boston).

Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME): The Boston Campus of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

Following a 1969 merger of Gordon Divinity School and Conwell School of Theology, the merged school sought ways to train leaders for urban ministry. In the early 1970s, the Rev. Michael Haynes of Twelfth Baptist Church, Doug Hall of the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC), and Dr. Stephen Mott of Gordon-Conwell helped establish an Urban Middler Year program enabling residential students to spend their middle year in the city of Boston with classes at EGC and field education in various city churches or ministries. However, this effort was not meeting the need for in-service training of Black and Hispanic leaders already in ministry.

Therefore, when Eldin Villafane was hired in 1976, he began developing what became the Center for Urban Ministerial Education (CUME). CUME was a new model for linking with a seminary rather than a college, and for its many methods of contextualizing theological education for urban leaders. As Villafane studied various programs, he incorporated ideas from action-reflection biblical models, urban Bible institutes, and Theological Education by Extension.⁴⁹ “Extension education,” Villafane said, “is not merely a matter of conducting the same classes with the same educational methods and the same teachers in a different location.”⁵⁰

Center for Urban Ministerial Education, Roxbury, Massachusetts

The CUME program provided access to an accredited seminary education for Christian pastors and lay leaders who were called, gifted, and experienced in ministry, but, for socio-economic and other reasons, had been excluded from a residential program. Even if they could have attended a traditional seminary program, it would not have been contextualized to the needs of their urban and immigrant church ministries. The CUME program was located in the heart of the city,⁵¹ with a diverse administration and faculty, and offered contextualized coursework in Spanish, Portuguese, French (for Haitians), and English. All classes were held in the evenings and on weekends when bi-vocational leaders could attend. To reduce economic barriers, tuition was reduced, and scholarships were available. The student body included leaders from many backgrounds, including Hispanic, Black, Brazilian, Haitian, Chinese, Korean, and Anglo churches of many denominations. This had the added benefit of promoting interchurch fellowship and ministry collaboration.

By 1983, the program had 177 students from 104 churches, and in subsequent years it more than doubled in size. Over the years, CUME has offered certificate and diploma programs, as well as M.A., M.R.E., and Master of Divinity programs, along with Mentored Ministry for the practical application of coursework. The program has declined greatly in recent years, but much can be learned from the ideals and principles of this model of theological education.

Conclusion: A Legacy of Innovation

These individual stories of the beginnings of new schools and training programs for Christian leaders reveal educational innovations and adaptations that can inspire current theological education initiatives. In founding Harvard University in 1636, Boston-area leaders used the curricula and learning methods they were familiar with from Cambridge and Oxford Universities. However, as they developed the first institution of higher education in North America, they pioneered adaptations to the new environment and their limited resources. They also paved the way for other early colleges. The strengths of the English and early American collegiate forms of ministry training included active learning of effective reasoning, rhetoric, and logic; an emphasis on biblical study with training in Greek and Hebrew; and residential community life with tutors and devotional practices.

Especially in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, pastoral mentoring was a vital form of ministerial education. This method had some limits tied to the pastor’s limited time, library, breadth and depth of knowledge, and teaching ability. However, pastoral mentoring had strengths, including personal interaction with the pastor and the opportunity to observe how he handled the trials and joys of life and ministry. Students also received practical instruction and opportunities to preach and serve in ministry with coaching and feedback. This personalized education was also well-suited to encourage personal spiritual growth.

The founders of Andover Theological Seminary (1807) sought to maintain traditional Reformed theology and biblical views in their training. However, Andover was innovative in establishing the first American model of a three-year, graduate-level residential seminary. This model was the prototype for scores of later theological seminaries. The strengths of this form of training, at least ideally, included providing distinguished professors with a depth of knowledge who could teach general and specialized courses and interact with students in class and out of class. In this type of residential seminary, students and faculty could focus much of their time on studies with less distraction. A residential seminary could provide a good library, residences, classrooms, and community life to encourage spiritual growth.

“These individual stories of the beginnings of new schools and training programs for Christian leaders reveal educational innovations and adaptations that can inspire current theological education initiatives.”

In the late nineteenth century, cities and their churches were rapidly growing, and the need for foreign missionaries increased as that movement expanded. These factors led to a need for new forms of accessible ministry training for those who couldn’t afford a full college and graduate seminary program. In response, Boston-area leaders founded some of the early Bible and missionary training institutes and schools. These were the early prototypes of the Bible School Movement. Faith Training College and the Boston Missionary Training Institute (later called Gordon College) offered shorter courses of study, with the advantage of preparing lay leaders and missionaries with free tuition, with low entry requirements, and with more practical, Bible-centered courses. Courses were offered for both men and women and were sometimes available in the evening. Several other area schools started as similar Bible institutes and, over the years, evolved into Christian colleges.

More recently, Boston-area leaders have developed ministry training programs contextualized to the changing city with its various social needs and growing immigrant populations. Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary developed the Center for Urban Ministerial Education. Among its strengths were accredited classes in several languages, held in the evenings and on weekends to accommodate lay leaders and bi-vocational pastors, and reduced tuition costs. The model drew on principles of Theological Education by Extension and action-reflection learning to integrate ministry preparation with ongoing involvement in the students’ own churches. Course content and topics were designed to address the needs of the urban context. This innovative program also became a model for other cities.

While other models could be cited, these examples demonstrate how Boston and New England schools have built on the past and created new innovations in theological education. These efforts in training pastors, lay leaders, and missionaries have had a worldwide impact and paved the way for the founding of many other ministry training schools.

Footnotes

1. The “Old Schools” were groups of older buildings used for university-wide lectures, disputations, libraries, and administration. They were distinct from the colleges where students and tutors lived, ate, and listened to what were called private lectures.↩︎
2. William T. Costello, The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958), 12.↩︎
3. Ibid., 13.↩︎
4. Ibid., 8.↩︎
5. Ibid.↩︎
6. New England’s First Fruits (London: R.O. and G.D. for Henry Overton, 1643).↩︎
7. New England’s First Fruits., for the 1642 Statutes of Harvard, and see also the 1655 “Lawes of the Colledge published publiquely before the Students of Harvard Colledge,” Colonial Society of Massachusetts, accessed 9 Dec. 2025, https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/429. These statutes give more details than the above summary about the studies and requirements in the early years of Harvard.↩︎
8. Roger Geiger, “The First Century of the American College: 1636-1740,” in The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2016), 7.↩︎
9. Preamble to the Collegiate School’s First Charter, approved by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut (the Connecticut legislature), 1701.↩︎
10. Geiger, 11.↩︎
11. Walter C. Bronson, The History of Brown University 1764-1914 (Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1914), 129.↩︎
12. Ibid., 103.↩︎
13. George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003), 250-51.↩︎
14. Leonard Woods, History of the Andover Theological Seminary (Boston: James R. Good, & Company, 1885), 19-20.↩︎
15. Ibid., 21-22.↩︎
16. Ibid., 19-24.↩︎
17. Leonard Woods, History of the Andover Theological Seminary (Boston: James R. Good, & Company, 1885).↩︎
18. Ibid., 153.↩︎
19. Ibid., 160-161.↩︎
20. Ibid.↩︎
21. Ibid., 137.↩︎
22. Board of Trustees, Newton Theological Institute: A Sketch of Its History (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1866), 6-7.↩︎
23. Ibid., 11.↩︎
24. Margaret Bendroth, A School of the Church: Andover Newton across Two Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008), 29.↩︎
25. General Catalogue of the Theological Institute of Connecticut at East-Windsor, 1843 (Hartford: Elihu Geer, 1843), 14.↩︎
26. Ibid., 15.↩︎
27. David B. Potts, Wesleyan University: 1831-1910 (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1992), xv.↩︎
28. “A People’s History of the School of Theology,” Boston University website, https://www.bu.edu/sth-history/graduates/concord-students/.↩︎
29. Ibid., https://www.bu.edu/sth-history/alphabetical-index/albert-l-long-1857/. (For example, Albert L. Long, class of 1857, became a missionary to Bulgaria.)↩︎
30. Annual Report of the School of Theology of Boston University, 1873. (Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1873), 18.↩︎
31. “Anna E. Hall, (1870-1964): Long-Time African-American Missionary Educator In Liberia,” Boston University School of Theology, History of Missiology, March 2020, https://www.bu.edu/missiology/2020/03/02/hall-anna-e-1870-1964/.↩︎
32. James Arthur Muller, The Episcopal Theological School: 1867-1943 (Cambridge, Mass.: Episcopal Theological School, 1943), 8.↩︎
33. Ibid., 31-32.↩︎
34. Ibid., 45.↩︎
35. Phillip Douglas Chapman, “The Whole Gospel for the Whole World: A History of the Bible School Movement within American Pentecostalism, 1880-1920” (Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 2008), 105-6.↩︎
36. Nathan R. Wood, A School of Christ (Boston: Halliday Lithograph, 1953), 11-12.↩︎
37. Ibid., 25.↩︎
38. Ibid., 27. (Only about 150 students completed the full two-year course of study.)↩︎
39. L. L. Doggett, History of the Boston Young Men’s Christian Association (Boston: Young Men’s Christian Association, 1901), 43.↩︎
40. Ibid.↩︎
41. Donald Dewart, Educational Institutions of New England (Boston: Bellman Publishing Company, 1946), 127.↩︎
42. Gordon College, “The History of Barrington College,” https://www.gordon.edu/about/history/barrington-history, accessed 14 Jan. 2026.↩︎
43. “Northpoint History,” Northpoint College Student Handbook (2020-2021), 5. https://northpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-2021-Student-Handbook.pdf.↩︎
44. Currently this degree program offers concentration on pastoral leadership, preaching and spiritual formation.↩︎
45. Garth M. Rosell, Boston’s Historic Park Street Church (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2009), 142.↩︎
46. Ibid., 42-43.↩︎
47. Ibid., 44.↩︎
48. These principles were illustrated with the analogy of a fence: (1) local weekly group meetings served as the fence posts; (2) independent self-study often using programmed texts between group meetings served as one fence rail; and (3) immediate practical ministry application served as the second fence rail.↩︎
49. Eldin Villafane and Rudy Mitchell, “The Center for Urban Ministerial Education,” Urban Mission 2, no.2 (Nov. 1984):32.↩︎
50. Ibid., 35.↩︎
51. Some classes were also held in Lawrence, Springfield and New Bedford, Massachusetts.↩︎

Bibliography

“Anna E. Hall, (1870-1964): Long-Time African-American Missionary Educator in Liberia,” Boston University School of Theology, History of Missiology,  March 2020, https://www.bu.edu/missiology/2020/03/02/hall-anna-e-1870-1964/.

Annual Report of the School of Theology of Boston University, 1873. Cambridge, Mass.: Riverside Press, 1873.

Bendroth, Margaret. A School of the Church: Andover Newton across Two Centuries. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2008.

Board of Trustees. Newton Theological Institute: A Sketch of Its History. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1866. 

Bronson, Walter C. The History of Brown University: 1764-1914. Providence, R.I.: Brown University, 1914. 

Chapman, Phillip Douglas. “The Whole Gospel for the Whole World: A History of the Bible School Movement within American Pentecostalism, 1880-1920.” Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State University, 2008.

Costello, William T. The Scholastic Curriculum at Early Seventeenth Century Cambridge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1958.

Dewart, Donald. Educational Institutions of New England. Boston: Bellman Publishing Company, 1946. 

Doggett, L. L. History of the Boston Young Men’s Christian Association. Boston: Young Men’s Christian Association, 1901. 

Geiger, Roger. ”The First Century of the American College: 1636 -1740,” in The History of American Higher Education: Learning and Culture from the Founding to World War II.  Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press,  2016.

General Catalogue of the Theological Institute of Connecticut at East-Windsor, 1843. Hartford: Elihu Geer, 1843.

Gordon College. “The History of Barrington College.” https://www.gordon.edu/about/history/barrington- history, accessed 14 Jan. 2026.

“Lawes of the Colledge published publiquely before the Students of Harvard Colledge,” 1655.  Colonial Society of Massachusetts, accessed 9 Dec. 2025, https://www.colonialsociety.org/node/429.

Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003.

Morison, Samuel Eliot. The Founding of Harvard College. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935. 

Muller, James Arthur. The Episcopal Theological School: 1867-1943. Cambridge, Mass.: Episcopal Theological School, 1943. 

New England’s First Fruits. London: R.O. and G.D. for Henry Overton, 1643. 

“Northpoint History,” Northpoint College Student Handbook: 2020-2021. https://northpoint.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2020-2021-Student-Handbook.pdf 

 “A People’s History of the School of Theology, Boston University website, https://www.bu.edu/sth-history/graduates/concord-students/. 

Potts, David B. Wesleyan University: 1831-1910. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1992.

Preamble to the Collegiate School’s First Charter, approved by the General Court of the Colony of Connecticut (the Connecticut legislature), 1701.

Rosell, Garth M. Boston’s Historic Park Street Church. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel Publications, 2009. 

Villafane, Eldin, and Rudy Mitchell. “The Center for Urban Ministerial Education,” Urban Mission 2, no.2 (Nov. 1984):32.

Wood, Nathan R. A School of Christ. Boston: Halliday Lithograph, 1953. 

Woods, Leonard. History of the Andover Theological Seminary. Boston: James R. Good, & Company, 1885.

Exploring Church Spaces: Pros and Cons of Renting Versus Owning

(Left to right: personalproducer and personalproducer, via Getty Images)

Exploring Church Spaces: Pros and Cons of Renting Versus Owning

How do I know when to rent or buy space for my church?

by Hanno van der Bijl, Managing Editor, Applied Research

A pastor finds a man outside the church building crying out to God. The pastor knows the building rises as a beacon of hope for this man struggling with substance use. But the church’s leadership struggles with the six-figure cost of maintaining that beacon.

It’s a fraught question many pastors and church leaders face as they discern the physical footprint of the church gathered: do they rent or do they buy?   

Boston’s congregations are almost evenly split between property owners and renters, according to EGC’s survey of property records. Just like individuals and families discern whether to pay a landlord or a mortgage, churches have to weigh the risks of renting or buying when looking for space. 

But how do you know when it is time to do one or the other? While the decision often simply comes down to financial feasibility and long-term goals, there are other factors to consider. We interviewed over a dozen church leaders with experience and expertise in the Boston area to help churches navigate the real estate scene.      

Renting

Many church leaders we surveyed are big fans of the flexibility renting has to offer. 

Renters can pay for a worship space only for the hours they need them. They can also buy or rent smaller spaces for other times as necessary. 

Renters have the benefit of lower initial costs and less financial burden. They don’t need a major initial capital investment, and they’re not responsible for major repairs and maintenance thereby avoiding costly risks associated with owning property. 

When it comes to renting from schools or other churches, the space is often already configured as auditorium and classrooms, so there’s no need to remodel. The landlord may also allow the renter to use items such as sound equipment or kitchen supplies without the expense of purchasing them.

A pastor near the city center said renting is a clear advantage if a church can secure a long-term lease. But that’s a big ‘if’ as schools and other institutions might only offer annual lease agreements.

Then there’s the flexibility to relocate. Churches who rent are nimble enough to meet elsewhere if circumstances dictate a move. If they outgrow their space, they can easily move to another larger location. In our 2025 Church Landscape Review of new church plants over a 10-year period, we found that only three of 21 congregations still rented space in the same building. While some congregations chose to move, some were forced out for various reasons, including COVID impacts.      

Renting also allows some churches to meet in prime urban areas where buying is not an option. They can rent different spaces for special events or activities without the need to make a long-term commitment. And with less time and resources spent on property administration and management, they are freed up to focus on other aspects of ministry, service and outreach.

But for every advantage, there is a flip side. 

“My idea of keeping the rental is to tell the church that we have to constantly assess ourselves. And also people will constantly assess you, whether you are a benefit to the community. That keeps us humble. Otherwise, we have a job that is not evaluated.”

What renters gain in flexibility, they give up in stability. They could be at the mercy of the personality of their landlords.

They have limited control over the use of the property: they can’t make significant changes to the space and can’t just schedule any activity wherever or whenever they like. 

For those who are not renting exclusive space, they have to move equipment around as well as set up and break down furniture for gatherings. It can get old lugging around that heavy loudspeaker every week. 

It is harder for those with a long-term lease to move to a new location if necessary. If their space becomes too small for them, they run the risk of losing families with young children who need space to run around.

And then there’s the disruption when the rent goes up, or worse, the lease is not renewed. Or even worse, when they are served an eviction notice. Rising rents in the city center have forced some churches to head for the suburbs. 

While they can easily relocate, churches that rent space don’t build equity in property or have a permanent presence in their communities. This instability can make it hard to plan for the long-term. 

Congregations who rent could be perceived by the community as not invested in the neighborhood for the long-term. But some church leaders take this as a good challenge. It motivates them to press into serving the community, earning their respect and support by showing them they add value to the neighborhood beyond extra traffic and business for local restaurants. 

“My idea of keeping the rental is to tell the church that we have to constantly assess ourselves,” said a pastor serving near the city center. “And also people will constantly assess you, whether you are a benefit to the community. That keeps us humble. Otherwise, we have a job that is not evaluated.” 

Buying

Churches with property enjoy the stability and control that comes with owning real estate. While other churches may be forced out of a neighborhood due to ever increasing rent prices, they can stay.   

These congregations have the flexibility to schedule events and activities at their convenience as they have full control over how the property is used. They have the freedom to modify their space to meet the specific needs of the congregation and community. And they likely have the space for young families to grow and thrive.

The property itself can be a visible presence in the community. People can come and go for services, counsel, and other ministries in a way that is not possible with a church renting space from institutions such as schools or commercial spaces such as hotels.

A congregation’s long-term investment in real estate builds equity, and they may have opportunities to generate revenue by renting out space to other churches or members of the community.

Their permanent presence and investment in an area also has the potential to develop leverage with the community and city. They are stakeholders with a voice. 

When the pandemic hit, congregations with property were able to rent space to others who couldn’t meet in their original locations due to distancing restrictions. And churches, who had paid off their mortgages, were better able to weather a decrease in tithes and offerings. In many ways, COVID affected renters more severely than owners, but congregations with mortgages were at risk of default, foreclosure and bankruptcy. And if they had any deferred maintenance projects that became active problems, they faced greater financial risks.  

So, just like with renting, there are drawbacks to owning property.

“If you own a building and you have parking, or if you have some access to land in a really expensive area, you could do things that would benefit the community—that the community would love, that your church would love, that God would love, everybody would love it. It would gain some real momentum for everyone.”

The benefits of owning dramatically decrease when it comes to the high cost of maintenance and repairs, especially with older buildings. Broken boilers, slate roofs with missing tiles, church steeples with rotting wood are all expensive things to repair. 

The initial cost of buying church property can be high for a congregation. They also have to factor in ongoing financial obligations such as insurance and utilities. Some experts recommend keeping as much as six months of operating expenses in reserve. There are also higher liability and insurance costs when it comes to owning as opposed to renting. The specter of property taxes looms as a possibility for some churches. 

No investment comes without risk. Changes in the market can negatively impact property values and the financial stability of churches. 

But depending on their location, there is potential for churches to think creatively and do innovative things with their properties. Many churches are located on prime real estate that community members, city officials, and developers want to capture and activate for other uses. If churches are putting their properties to good use in partnership with local entities, they have a voice in prominent areas of the city. But if congregations only use their buildings two or three times a week, they run the risk of creating dead space on a city block. Church buildings that generate low activity similar to self-storage units or parking lots can be detrimental to the vibrancy of a street or neighborhood. 

That is why some pastors are encouraging their peers to think outside the church box and imagine other uses for the land their buildings sit on. They could engage a partner to redevelop the property for a mixed-use project. That would likely entail tearing the building down and replacing it with something the neighborhood wants or needs, such as a non-exploitive housing development. The church would own a worship space on the ground floor and share ownership and profits with the developer in perpetuity. 

“If you own a building and you have parking, or if you have some access to land in a really expensive area, you could do things that would benefit the community—that the community would love, that your church would love, that God would love, everybody would love it,” one pastor in Greater Boston said. “It would gain some real momentum for everyone.”   

There is potential for your church building to shine as a beacon of hope on a metaphorical hill in your community. The stewardship of church space is a ministry in and of itself. And like any ministry, it presents unique challenges and opportunities to seek first the kingdom of God at this particular time in your particular neighborhood. What could the Holy Spirit be saying to your congregation about the use of the real estate entrusted to you? 

Resources

Renting and buying both come with short- and long-term risks. Here are some resources to help you develop the right questions to ask before making a decision. 

To Build, Buy, Lease or Rent…that IS the question 

by Tim Cool, Smart Church Solutions (March 22, 2019) 

https://www.smartchurchsolutions.com/resources/blog/to-build-buy-lease-or-rent-that-is-the-question/  

Renting Versus Buying Your Church’s Facility 

by Evangelical Christian Credit Union, XPastor (December 5, 2012) 

https://www.xpastor.org/finance/banking/renting-versus-buying-your-churchs-facility/

How to Buy a Church Building: The Ultimate Guide to Buying a Church for Sale

by Griffin Church Loans (April 28, 2023)

https://www.church-loan.com/blog/how-to-buy-church

Sacred Space for the Missional Church: Engaging Culture through the Built Environment 

by William McAlpine (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2015)

https://wipfandstock.com/9781608994687/sacred-space-for-the-missional-church/

Top 10 Things to Know When Buying a Church Property 

by John Muzyka, Church Realty (May 15, 2020) 

https://www.churchrealty.com/top-10-things-when-buying-a-church-property/  

How to Rent Well: Helping Congregations Navigate their Economic Future

by Rooted Good (February 22, 2024)

https://www.rootedgood.org/post/how-to-rent-well-helping-congregations-navigate-their-economic-future

Exploring Church Spaces: Church-Space Decisions

(Clockwise from top left: Vickie, sturti, Wasan Tita, Martine Severin, all via Getty Images)

Exploring Church Spaces: Church-Space Decisions

How Boston Churches Weigh and Manage Space-Use Requests

by Emmanuel Gospel Center

Your church has just received a request to use its space for a community event. How do you decide whether to approve it? What factors should you consider? Who in your congregation makes that call?

Managing church property involves balancing the community’s needs with the congregation’s values and long-term sustainability. This guide explores how some churches in Boston walk that line. 

In the first section, we explore some factors that go into making these decisions and recommendations for taking action. The second part sketches out some decision-making models that might suit your church. We also include strategies to maintain a thriving, flexible space that serves your congregation and community. The final section lists resources by experts and organizations specializing in the field. 

What goes into church-space decisions?

Each church has a unique approach to making decisions. Still, every congregation must consider several key decisions when managing its space. 

Those churches that leverage their property as part of their mission share some standard practices: 

• They establish a clear vision that provides guiding principles when making decisions.  

• They decide what procedures make sense for them as they coordinate with different parties. That could include pastors, administrators, boards, teams, maintenance staff, and community groups. 

• They are intentional about the way they manage relationships with space users. 

• They decide how to respond to external influences, including community needs and local regulations. 

• They maintain their property and ensure financial stability by allocating resources with discernment. 

• They adjust to challenges by practicing an adaptive mindset.

Below, we explore these six practices and offer recommendations based on input from 10 churches in the Boston area leveraging their space for missional purposes. 

1. Establish a Clear Vision

Churches that use their property effectively often begin with a shared understanding of what their space is for. A clear internal vision—one that aligns with the church’s broader mission—provides a foundation for decision-making. It helps prevent confusion, minimize conflict, and ensure that space-use decisions support the church’s values and priorities.

While it may seem like everyone is on the same page, assumptions can quickly lead to misunderstandings—especially when requests come from various internal ministries or external groups. Without a shared vision, the team or committee reviewing requests may struggle to weigh competing needs or reach a consensus.

Churches in our study emphasized the importance of having a clearly articulated vision for space use that reflects their mission and community commitments. This vision can then guide the creation of policies, procedures, and partnerships that are consistent and sustainable.

Recommendations for Establishing a Clear Vision

• Clarify your church’s priorities. Begin by reviewing your church’s mission and strategic goals. Ask how the use of space can support these commitments—whether it’s discipleship, outreach, hospitality, or community development.

• Engage your congregation. Involve church leaders and members in naming shared values and aspirations for how the space is used. A collaborative process builds buy-in and helps surface diverse perspectives.

• Develop a guiding statement. Draft a short statement or set of principles that capture your church’s approach to space use. This statement can serve as a north star for your decision-making team and be shared with outside groups who request space.

• Use your vision to shape policies. Align space-use procedures and partnerships with your stated vision. When vision drives decisions, churches are better positioned to steward their property in ways that are consistent, equitable, and missional.

• Revisit and reaffirm. As your church evolves, revisit the vision to ensure it remains relevant. A periodic review—along with prayerful discernment—can help your church respond faithfully to new opportunities and challenges.

2. Coordinate Procedures

Churches generally follow a set of steps to guide their property management decisions. These procedures streamline decision-making, ensure accountability, and include varied perspectives.

The formality of these procedures differed among the churches in our study. Some operate under rigorous procedures requiring multiple layers of approvals and documentation. Others rely on more informal, verbal agreements among leadership. The most effective procedures involved various stakeholders. Church members, leaders, and external advisors contribute to more informed and balanced decisions. 

Clear and open communication enhances stakeholders’ involvement in the decision-making processes. Leadership expertise also matters for both long-term planning goals and immediate operational decisions. Effective management often depends on trained and experienced individuals in key roles. These leaders can make informed decisions using best practices and ensure regulatory compliance.

Recommendations for Coordinating Procedures

• Define roles and guidelines. Establish clear guidelines for space-use decisions, including steps, necessary approvals, and responsibilities. Even a basic written outline can help maintain consistency, especially during leadership transitions.

• Include diverse perspectives. To gain well-rounded input on property use, bring together a mix of voices: church members, local experts, and advisors. Committees with finance, real estate, or legal experience can be especially helpful.

• Educate and communicate. Ensure that all involved are familiar with the procedures. Regular communication helps prevent misunderstandings and ensures everyone knows the process. Invest in training for key personnel in management, finances, and regulations. 

• Review and evolve. Revise these procedures as needed to align with the church’s goals and any new legal or community needs. Planning for leadership succession supports smooth transitions and long-term continuity in property management.

3. Maintain Space and Relationships

Your church has made decisions about managing agreements and maintaining property. But it will take a combination of factors to see it through. You need dedicated personnel, structured maintenance practices, and strategic use of technology.

Challenges such as aging infrastructure and budget constraints are common. Still, they can be mitigated through proactive planning and strong external partnerships.

Churches often have dedicated staff, such as facility managers or maintenance teams. These are responsible for the day-to-day operations of church properties. 

Regular maintenance schedules are crucial for prolonging the life of church facilities. They also avoid costly emergency repairs.

Successful operational management often relies on strong relationships with vendors and contractors. These businesses provide regular services, such as cleaning, landscaping, and repairs. Maintenance management software can also enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of property management.

Recommendations for Maintaining Space and Relationships

• Develop a maintenance program. Develop and adhere to regular maintenance schedules for all church properties. The program should include both preventive maintenance and scheduled inspections. This practice will help identify issues before they become serious problems. Technology solutions can be useful. Digital tools can help streamline maintenance tasks, track expenses, and store records of repairs and warranties.1

• Train maintenance staff. Ensure all maintenance staff receive proper training. They should be equipped to handle the needs of church properties, including using any relevant technology.

• Build and maintain vendor relationships. Establish relationships with reliable vendors and contractors. Consider long-term contracts for regular services to improve service quality and cost-effectiveness.

• Include maintenance in the budget. Earmark a specific budget for maintenance and repairs, including a reserve fund for unexpected issues. A rainy day fund helps prevent financial strain from emergency repairs.

• Review and update maintenance practices. Review maintenance practices on a regular basis. Adjust them based on new technologies, changes in property usage, and feedback from staff and congregants. Also, regularly update safety and accessibility features. Staying on top of this will ensure that the church not only adheres to legal standards but also looks out for the well-being of all property users.

4. Address External Influences

Churches make decisions related to their internal operations and external partnerships. However, they also have to respond to changes in the broader community. There are economic conditions, regulatory environments, community changes, environmental concerns, and technological advancements. These external influences can all play a role in shaping how churches manage their properties.

Take, for example, changes in the local and national economy, such as recessions or property market fluctuations. These forces can strain churches’ financial capacity to steward and invest in properties. Local governments amend and revise regulations, zoning laws, and building codes. To stay compliant with these changes, churches must adapt their property management strategies. Then, there are local initiatives for historical preservation and environmental sustainability. These may also factor into churches’ decisions about how they use their property.

Shifts in community demographics, needs, and impact can also have an effect. How church property is used and what services are most demanded may change.  

These factors can present both challenges and opportunities. Churches need to remain flexible and responsive.

Recommendations for Addressing External Influences

• Regularly assess the local environment. Conduct regular scans of external conditions to stay ahead of impacts on property management. Keep an eye on economic trends, regulatory changes, and community needs. Provide a seat at the table for community members in discussions about property use. An open posture will help ensure church facilities are meeting the evolving needs of the community. Make sure church leaders and property managers receive ongoing training on external developments affecting property management. This professional development will strengthen their capacity to respond and adapt with wisdom and agility.

• Build relationships with local authorities. Local government officials can provide churches with advanced notice of regulatory changes. Strong relationships at city hall can also be critical in navigating complex compliance issues.

• Plan for financial resilience. Develop financial plans that account for potential economic downturns or fluctuations. A ready plan will ensure that resources are available for critical property maintenance and operations. Stay informed about emerging property management technologies. Invest in those that deliver significant gains in cost, efficiency, or compliance. Consider investments in sustainable technologies and practices that not only meet environmental standards but also reduce long-term operating costs.

5. Allocate and Secure Resources

Churches seek to maintain their properties well and respond to opportunities and challenges as they arise. Achieving this requires intentional budgeting and the strategic direction of resources.

Beyond common financial constraints, many churches face challenges with aging infrastructure. Older buildings often demand frequent repairs and updates that can strain budgets. However, proactive planning and involvement of the church community can mitigate these limitations.

The churches in this study used various funding methods for property-related expenses. These included regular budget allocations, special fundraising campaigns, and designated offerings. The churches with clear budgets and strong financial tracking systems were better equipped to handle routine maintenance and unexpected repairs.

Budget constraints limit a church’s ability to undertake significant upgrades or expansions. This dynamic often requires creative solutions and strategic prioritization of spending.

Recommendations for Allocating and Securing Resources

• Develop comprehensive budgets. Ensure budgets include allocations for maintenance, emergencies, and long-term upgrades. This discipline will help keep property resources steady and prepared.

• Perform transparent financial reviews. Hold regular reviews of property-related finances with key stakeholders for transparency and accountability.

• Create fundraising and spending strategies. Organize special offerings or capital campaigns to support property needs. Develop a framework for prioritizing property spending, guided by the church’s strategic goals, safety, and financial feasibility. 

• Explore grant opportunities and pro bono support. Many grants are available for specific needs, such as historic preservation. Consider allocating personnel resources to identifying and applying for relevant grants. Reserve capital campaigns for needs not covered by grant funding—or for use in matching grant scenarios. In addition, a wide range of external resources may be available to churches that seek them out. Architecture and design firms, real estate legal groups, and business professionals often provide pro bono services. Churches that are successful in this area consistently report that simply starting conversations and doing their own research—especially by talking with other churches and people in related industries—has helped them uncover a wealth of support they didn’t initially know existed.

• Seek financial guidance from experts. Partner with local professionals who can offer insight and oversight for managing property-related finances. These partnerships may emerge through networking, denominational connections, or community outreach.

• Provide financial management training. Offer workshops for church leaders on financial management practices, focusing on long-term sustainability.

6. Adapt to Change

From physical and financial constraints to regulatory and environmental considerations, churches face multiple, intersecting challenges. 

Limited financial and human resources make it hard to perform necessary property improvements, much less expansions. And on top of aging infrastructure, churches have to deal with evolving building codes, zoning laws, safety regulations, and environmental standards. These challenges can be complex and costly.

The needs of their communities and congregational demographics also change over time. To sustain operations and fulfill their mission in their communities, churches need to adapt.

Recommendations for Adapting to Change

• Steward the property. Develop proactive maintenance plans with regular inspections and upkeep. Proper stewardship will cut down on any costly surprises. Consult with legal and regulatory experts. Their valuable input will help ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and avoid potential fines and legal issues. Consider energy-efficient upgrades, which can reduce long-term costs.

• Train for contingencies. Offer training for church leaders and property managers on best practices in crisis management and adaptive reuse of church properties.

• Build your support network. Build relationships with local organizations, businesses, and government agencies. These connections can provide support, resources, or funding for property-related challenges.

• Set your church’s culture for adapting to change. While there are many resources available on adaptive reuse of church properties, cultivating an agile church culture is just as important as knowing the options. Churches that adapt well don’t just implement new ideas—they foster a culture of experimentation, reflection, and refinement. They try things, evaluate what works and what doesn’t, and keep adjusting. This kind of flexibility can coexist with a clear and steady mission. A church that values learning and iteration is more likely to respond faithfully to ongoing internal and external change.

Decision and Management Models

It’s Friday evening, and congregants are excited to gather for a prayer meeting at their church. However, they didn’t get much advance notice that an outside group had requested to use their chapel that same night. So, the church members have to move to another space in their building. But that means they don't have access to the musical instruments in the chapel they usually play during their prayer service. Needless to say, the organizers of the prayer meeting are not thrilled that they don't have everything they need. They also feel they are being treated as secondary to the outside group.

Managing church spaces can feel like orchestrating a small city’s worth of schedules. But when the calendar gets tight, it's important to remember that every event is about people working together on a common mission. The decision-making groups that ensure those spaces are available are no different.

Our research uncovered six models for making decisions about using church property. The models come from resources in the field as well as input from ten Boston-area churches that are making effective use of their space. The leaders of these churches are familiar with their church’s space use policies and practices. We asked them about the people and processes involved in approving, scheduling, and managing church space. 

Each decision-making model has advantages and downsides. Depending on your church’s people and priorities, you may find more suitable models. These models may also be a starting point for you to craft a custom model that’s ideal for your church. See Figure 1 for a summary of the church space models.

Boston-Area Models in Our Study

1. Council- or Board-led Model

In this model, the church council or board is the primary decision-making body for property usage. They review requests and make the final decisions, often with input from other committees or teams.

Pros

• Centralized decision-making ensures consistency and alignment with church goals.

• A board should include broad representation from various church leaders and members.

Cons

• The process can be slow if the board is waiting for input from multiple teams.

• The board may lack specialized knowledge if they are not well-versed in property management.

2. Facilities-Team Model

A facilities committee or team handles property management and usage decisions. This team handles logistics, availability, and coordination with other church ministries. The team may focus on facilities management, or they may perform other duties as well.

Pros

• Decisions are made by those with specific knowledge and expertise in facilities management.

• Their focus often means they can address requests and resolve issues with efficiency.

Cons

• A specialized working group risks limiting input from the broader church community.

• This team of people brings strong property expertise. However, that may result in decisions that are too focused on logistics rather than broader church mission.

3. Admin-First Model

The administrative team manages the church calendar and reviews new requests. They ensure there are no potential conflicts before any further steps are taken. The administrative office also processes all space-usage requests. They forward them to the facilities committee or other relevant bodies for a final decision. In general, the administration-first model does not rely on the administrative office for approval or management.

Pros

• An efficient and streamlined process for coordinating space-usage requests. A centralized calendar management helps avoid scheduling conflicts and ensures consistency and organization.

• The multi-team process encourages broad participation and input from various stakeholders. More perspectives can lead to more innovative and community-focused decisions.

Cons

• Multi-step processes have the potential for slower decision-making due to the need for consensus.

• The administrative team, which usually has many other duties, can become overburdened with requests, presenting a potential bottleneck.

4. Pastor-Led Model

A pastor or a specific church leader is the initial point of contact for space usage requests. The pastor then brings the request to the church council or board for final approval.

Pros

• A centralized decision-making structure with a single point of contact is efficient. The pastor can be responsive to requests.

• A pastor will likely be able to weigh requests in alignment with the church’s broader mission.

Cons

• The task places a heavy burden on the pastor or single leader to weigh requests.

5. Application-First Model

Church members are free to use the space as needed. However, external groups must go through a formal application process. They need to receive approval from the main decision-making body.

Pros

• An application ensures the vetting of external groups using church property.

• Applications can include policies for usage, which helps maintain standards over how the property is used by outsiders.

Cons

• A formal application may discourage some external groups, especially those of diverse education levels and language backgrounds.

• Because the application is informational rather than relational, it can create a perception of exclusivity or lack of openness.

6. Restricted-Access Model

Due to limited resources or other constraints, the church may not accept new space-usage requests for a time. The church council reviews this policy at set intervals.

Pros

• Pauses in space-usage requests help with the effective management of limited resources.

• Pauses also ensure that existing commitments are prioritized.

Cons

• Restricting access can limit opportunities for new activities and community engagement.

• A “closed” rather than “booked” status can create a perception of unwelcome or exclusivity.

More Configurations

Multisite Hierarchical Model

Multisite churches often have one team in a central office that can administer multiple sites. With a hierarchical model, multisite churches have central management and local team input.

Pros

• The central coordination ensures alignment across multiple sites with a unified vision.

• Input from local teams means they have site-specific agility and insight while maintaining overall control.

Cons

• Centralized approval can create a disconnect between the central leadership and individual sites’ needs.

• Many layers of approval can lead to slower decision-making if there are no clear processes and turnaround times.

Open/Informal Model

Some churches have no specific guiding process and work as a community without a formal process to make the decisions as they come.

Pros

• Some church communities prefer a flexible and accommodating approach to space usage. For them, a consistent process might feel cumbersome.

• Keeping things informal encourages a relational and inclusive atmosphere.

Cons

• A lack of policy, process, or team has the potential for disorganization. It may also lack consistency with the church’s mission and priorities.

• A lack of coordination risks overcommitting resources and space.

Choosing the Best Decision-Making Model: Team Discussion Questions

The discussion questions below seek to help your church leaders discern the various decision-making models. They should consider which best suits your community’s unique needs for space. 

You might use these questions in a variety of ways. Your church leadership could use them in a group discussion with key stakeholders. Your team could review them when a new person joins the team or discuss updates to the questions in meetings. The leadership team could use them to guide a preliminary assessment before the church undergoes major changes to the space or its use. 

These questions can help identify the most suitable decision-making model. Using the right model can help prevent complex problems and inefficiencies in your decision-making before they arise.

• What is the size and structure of our church? Larger churches may benefit from more structured and formal processes. Smaller churches might prefer informal or collaborative approaches. As one leader put it, “As churches grow, decision-making becomes complex.”

• What human resources does our church have? Does your church have dedicated facilities teams or administrative staff? If so, your church can handle more centralized or committee-based models.

• How important is community engagement to our church in this season? Does your church focus on community involvement? If so, it may prefer models that encourage broad participation and input.

• How important is speed and efficiency to our church community? Churches needing quick decision-making may opt for admin-first models or, in the case of smaller churches, a pastor-led model.

• Which model best serves God’s mission for our church? Ensuring the model aligns with the church's overall mission and goals is crucial.

Recommended Reading

This article is an introduction to the types and methods of decisions churches make about the use of their space. The content of this article is based on insights from pastors in the Boston area. Would you like to go deeper into these topics or see other decision-making models not represented in our local review? If so, we recommend the following resources from the field.

1. Who Makes Church Decisions? — This article from Smart Church Management outlines the typical groups involved in church decision-making: pastors, church members, and boards. It emphasizes the importance of balancing these perspectives to align decisions with the church's mission and strategy. It also discusses the role of church bylaws, strategic plans, and advisory councils in formalizing and guiding decision-making processes (Smart Church Management).

2. Models of Church Governance — Andy Judd's article discusses various governance models, including the mega-church, Anglican, and Presbyterian models. Each model has different structures for decision-making, from highly centralized power in mega-churches to more collaborative and consultative approaches in Anglican and Presbyterian models. Understanding these models can provide insights into how different churches manage their property and make decisions (Andy Judd).

3. 7 Policies Every Church Needs for Trust and Transparency — The Lewis Center for Church Leadership highlights the importance of having clear policies for building use, financial management, and member involvement. These policies help ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making, which is crucial for managing church property effectively (Lewis Church Leadership).

4. Complex Decision-Making in Growing Churches — An article from Baptist News Global discusses how decision-making becomes more complex as churches grow. It suggests that larger churches may need more structured governance and formal processes to handle property management decisions effectively, while smaller churches might benefit from more flexible and informal approaches (Baptist News Global).

5. Organizational Design and Decision-Making — Regent University provides insights into how organizational design can impact church decision-making. It discusses the importance of having a clear hierarchy and decision-making process to ensure that all stakeholders are involved appropriately and that decisions align with the church’s mission and goals (Regent University).

Endnotes

1.  For more on different maintenance management digital tools, see Joshua Gordon, “2025 Church Facility Management: Software Industry-Leaders,” https://theleadpastor.com/tools/best-church-facility-management-software/, updated April 25, 2025. 

Feet Fitted with the Gospel of Peace

(Clockwise from top left: Welcomia, Denis Tangney Jr, captain_galaxy, YT, all via Getty Images)

Feet Fitted with the Gospel of Peace 

A prayer walk, a prophetic dream, and a call to stand with our immigrant brothers and sisters

by Sarah Blumenshine, Director, Intercultural Ministries

Leer in español

One of the beauties of my work is connecting deeply with immigrant communities in and around Boston. This summer I’ve been attending regular morning prayer calls led by the Agencia ALPHA team over Zoom. On a recent call, Pastor Sergio Perez of Harvest Ministries in Weymouth invited us to join an upcoming prayer walk in the city of Lynn. About a dozen of us showed up the following Saturday. Pastors joined hands with families and seniors. We were all there for one purpose: to pray protection and blessing over the city.

Before we broke into groups and began our walk, Pastor Sergio shared a dream he’d had more than 15 years ago. This dream took place on a particular street corner in Lynn. Exactly what is happening now across the country was playing out in his dream. Officers were rounding up immigrants and loading them into a bus. Families were terrified, trying to get away. In his dream, Pastor Sergio approached the officers and told them that they needed to take care. He asserted that immigrants have dignity and humanity and deserve decency. The officers seemed to pause and were somewhat affected, and then Pastor Sergio woke up. The dream felt so real that it stuck with him.

When we paired off and picked a direction to walk, Pastor Sergio headed in the direction of the street corner he’d seen in his dream. I teamed up with Patricia Sobalvarro, Executive Director of Agencia ALPHA, and Pastora Ramonita Mulero of Iglesia Hispana de la Comunidad. Together we began walking toward a nearby Market Basket grocery store, where many immigrants find employment. We prayed through Ephesians 6:10-18 about putting on the armor of God, asking for truth, for faith, for the protection that comes not from our own efforts but from the astonishing goodness of God.

Something struck me that I’d not seen before. I’ve always associated this passage with spiritual defense. But this time, the instruction to stand firm “with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace,” landed in a fresh way. Even in battle against spiritual darkness, we are told to wear shoes that can bear us quickly elsewhere to share the good news of peace! Such hope, even certainty. 

As we walked, we passed immigrant-owned shops, houses, and apartments. We recalled the passage in Exodus where God told the Israelites to paint the blood of a lamb over their doorframes as a sign for the angel of death to pass, thereby sparing their firstborn sons. We covered homes and businesses and sidewalks and churches with pleas for physical protection, praying that violence would pass them by.

Patricia shared a reflection on the story of the Israelites finally expelled from Egypt, only to have Pharaoh change his mind. He sent chariots and soldiers to pursue and enslave them again. Meanwhile, the Israelites were approaching the Red Sea with nowhere to go. Patricia remarked that she has often wondered how she would have felt had she experienced that moment. Every step closer to an impassable body of water would have seemed like impending death. When things seemed most desperate, God made a preposterous way through the sea. We prayed for these kinds of miracles, admitting we could see no way through, but God surely could.

“Put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace.”

— Ephesians 6:13-15

When we returned to the church parking lot, each group offered a few words about their experience. Another pastor who was present started sharing, first to the whole group, and then he turned and spoke specifically to me. Because I am still learning Spanish, I only understood a fraction of his testimony, but I know our hearts saw each other. He spoke with deep passion, such that he started weeping.

When the pastor finished speaking, Pastor Sergio asked how much I had understood. Seeing my uncertainty, he kindly translated the pastor’s words. He explained that my presence—and what I represent as a U.S.-born citizen—carried a certain weight. He related how many immigrants feel isolated and unseen by others. They feel invisible to their Christian brothers and sisters in this country. The fact that someone from that context would see their suffering and journey with them was overwhelming to the pastor who shared. Pastor Sergio compared it to the story of the British politician William Wilberforce, who, despite his privilege and comforts, identified with the plight of enslaved people and became an advocate for the ending of slavery.

I was stunned. I hadn’t done anything extraordinary; I had simply shown up to pray, side by side with my sisters and brothers. Truthfully, it felt like the bare minimum my spiritual siblings should expect. Jesus told us to love one another as we love ourselves. Geography, international boundaries, human laws—these are all important. But not one of them stops us from being part of the same family, the same body.

“The parts of the body will not take sides,” Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 12:25-26. “All of them will take care of one another. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it. If one part is honored, every part shares in its joy.”

Lately, I’ve had an image in my head of the Church in the United States as a human body suffering from neuropathy. Our nervous system, the network that carries sensation and information and generates feedback, is damaged. Our ability to perceive one another is scrambled. I imagine someone standing next to a hot stove, hand on the burner, completely unaware that skin and tissue are melting until they smell the burning—but by then, the damage is done.

Friends, parts of the body of Christ are on fire. I do not exaggerate. I am one nerve that transmits impulse and effect. I bear witness to that agony. We are poor in relationships that cross cultural lines. Our relational distance allows us to dehumanize the “other.” We forget that we’re kin. We fail to see that our thriving is enmeshed.

“This body of Christ desperately needs healing. It is at war with itself. Healing starts within each one of us. What kind of fruit am I nurturing with the substance of my soul? In the communities I am part of, are we together seeking the flourishing of all people?”

The current level of chaos in the federal government is a smoke screen that further obscures our view. Some of us have swallowed the lie that law and punishment are righteous, but compassion is only for those who deserve it. This falsehood is antithetical to the life and ministry of Jesus.

Laws have their purpose in a well-functioning society, to be sure. If we are fueled by love and joy, filled with the fruit of the Spirit, we will work with others to correct immoral laws and apply them with fairness. 

In contrast, today the fruit of our policies and power is on grotesque display. Every human being suffering in a detention camp with no legal recourse, every person deported to a country that is not their own, each careless arrest, every child who cries for their missing parents—these we cannot brush off as collateral damage. They are the fruit of fear, resentment, self-righteousness, and a will to dominate. They are what happens when laws are weaponized as instruments of oppression.

This body of Christ desperately needs healing. It is at war with itself. Healing starts within each one of us. What kind of fruit am I nurturing with the substance of my soul? In the communities I am part of, are we together seeking the flourishing of all people?

We remember our kinship by listening to one another. We dedicate the time and attention required to understand each other. We choose to take simple but significant steps, such as joining our hearts in prayer. These habits are transformative, and they give rise to new points of connection that slowly help us repair what has been broken.

As we commit ourselves to this way of life, everyone doing their part, honoring one another’s pain and celebrating each other’s joys, we begin to experience the body as God intended. God’s design is for the Church to be an agent of hope, healing, and reconciliation both within and without. May it be so.

Calzados con el Evangelio de la Paz

(En el sentido de las agujas del reloj desde la parte superior izquierda: Welcomia, Denis Tangney Jr, captain_galaxy, YT, todos vía Getty Images)

Calzados con el Evangelio de la Paz

Una caminata de oración, un sueño profético y un llamado a solidarizarse con nuestros hermanos y hermanas migrantes

por Sarah Blumenshine, Directora de Ministerios Interculturales

Una de las bellezas de mi trabajo es conectar profundamente con comunidades migrantes en Boston y sus alrededores. Este verano, he estado participando en llamadas regulares de oración matutina dirigidas por el equipo de Agencia ALPHA a través de Zoom. En una de esas llamadas, el Pastor Sergio Pérez de Harvest Ministries en Weymouth nos invitó a una próxima caminata de oración en la ciudad de Lynn. El sábado siguiente, unas doce personas nos reunimos. Pastores se unieron con familias y personas mayores. Todos estábamos allí con un solo propósito: orar por protección y bendición sobre la ciudad.

Antes de dividirnos en grupos y comenzar a caminar, el Pastor Sergio compartió un sueño que había tenido hace más de 15 años. El sueño se desarrollaba en una esquina específica de Lynn. Exactamente lo que está sucediendo ahora en todo el país estaba ocurriendo en su sueño. Agentes estaban deteniendo a migrantes y subiéndolos a un autobús. Las familias estaban aterrorizadas, tratando de escapar. En el sueño, el Pastor Sergio se acercaba a los agentes y les decía que tuvieran cuidado. Les afirmaba que los migrantes tienen dignidad y humanidad, y merecen ser tratados con decencia. Los agentes parecían hacer una pausa y mostraban cierta conmoción, y entonces el Pastor Sergio despertó. El sueño se sintió tan real que se le quedó grabado.

Cuando nos emparejamos y elegimos una ruta para caminar, el Pastor Sergio se dirigió hacia la esquina que había visto en su sueño. Yo caminé junto a Patricia Sobalvarro, Directora Ejecutiva de Agencia ALPHA, y la Pastora Ramonita Mulero de la Iglesia Hispana de la Comunidad. Juntas comenzamos a caminar hacia el supermercado Market Basket cercano, donde muchos migrantes encuentran empleo. Oramos en base a lo que dice Efesios 6:10-18, de ponernos la armadura de Dios, pidiendo verdad, fe y protección que no proviene de nuestro propio esfuerzo, sino de la asombrosa bondad de Dios.

Algo me impactó y no lo había visto antes. Siempre había asociado este pasaje con la defensa espiritual. Pero esta vez, la instrucción de estar firmes “con los pies calzados con la disposición de proclamar el evangelio de la paz” me llegó de una manera fresca. ¡Incluso en la batalla contra la oscuridad espiritual, se nos dice que usemos un calzado que nos lleve rápidamente a compartir las buenas nuevas de la paz! Tal esperanza, incluso certeza.

Mientras caminábamos, pasamos por tiendas de inmigrantes, casas y apartamentos. Recordamos el pasaje en Éxodo donde Dios les dice a los israelitas que pinten con la sangre de un cordero los marcos de sus puertas como señal para que el ángel de la muerte pasara de largo, perdonando así a sus primogénitos. Cubrimos hogares, negocios, aceras e iglesias con ruegos por protección física, orando para que la violencia pasara de largo.

Patricia compartió una reflexión sobre la historia de los israelitas finalmente expulsados de Egipto, solo para que el faraón cambiara de opinión. Envió carros y soldados para perseguirlos y esclavizarlos de nuevo. Mientras tanto, los israelitas se acercaban al Mar Rojo sin ningún lugar a dónde ir. Patricia comentó que a menudo se ha preguntado cómo se habría sentido en ese momento. Cada paso hacia ese cuerpo de agua infranqueable habría parecido una sentencia de muerte. Y entonces, Dios abrió un camino completamente impensable a través del mar. Oramos por ese tipo de milagros, reconociendo que no veíamos salida, pero sabiendo que Dios ciertamente sí.

“Pónganse toda la armadura de Dios, para que cuando llegue el día malo, puedan resistir hasta el fin con firmeza. Manténganse firmes, ceñidos con el cinturón de la verdad, protegidos por la coraza de justicia, y calzados con la disposición de proclamar el evangelio de la paz.”

— Efesios 6:13-15

Al regresar al estacionamiento de la iglesia, cada grupo compartió algunas palabras sobre su experiencia. Otro pastor presente comenzó a compartir, primero con todo el grupo, y luego se dirigió específicamente a mí. Como todavía estoy aprendiendo español, solo entendí una fracción de su testimonio, pero sé que nuestros corazones se entendieron. Habló con tanta pasión que comenzó a llorar.

Cuando el pastor terminó de hablar, el Pastor Sergio me preguntó cuánto había entendido. Al ver mi incertidumbre, amablemente tradujo sus palabras. Explicó que mi presencia—y lo que represento como ciudadana nacida en Estados Unidos—tenía un peso particular. Contó cómo muchos migrantes se sienten aislados e invisibles para los demás. Se sienten invisibles para sus hermanos y hermanas cristianos en este país. El hecho de que alguien de ese contexto viera su sufrimiento y caminara junto a ellos fue abrumador para el pastor que compartió. El Pastor Sergio lo comparó con la historia del político británico William Wilberforce, quien, a pesar de sus privilegios y comodidades, se identificó con la lucha de las personas esclavizadas y se convirtió en un defensor en contra de la esclavitud.

Me quedé atónita. No había hecho nada extraordinario; simplemente me había presentado para orar, lado a lado con mis hermanos y hermanas. La verdad es que se sintió como lo mínimo que mis hermanos espirituales deberían esperar. Jesús nos dijo que nos amáramos los unos a los otros como a nosotros mismos. La geografía, las fronteras internacionales, las leyes humanas—todas son importantes. Pero ninguna de ellas nos impide ser parte de la misma familia, del mismo cuerpo.

“Los miembros del cuerpo no deben dividirse,” escribe Pablo en 1 Corintios 12:25-26. “Todos deben preocuparse los unos por los otros. Si un miembro sufre, todos los demás comparten su sufrimiento. Si un miembro es honrado, todos los demás comparten su alegría.”

Últimamente, tengo en mi mente la imagen de la Iglesia en los Estados Unidos como un cuerpo humano que sufre de neuropatía. Nuestro sistema nervioso, la red que transmite sensaciones, información y genera retroalimentación, está dañado. Nuestra capacidad para percibirnos unos a otros está desordenada. Me imagino a alguien de pie junto a una estufa caliente, con la mano sobre el quemador, completamente inconsciente de que su piel y tejido se están quemando hasta que huele a carne quemada—pero para entonces, el daño ya está hecho.

Amigos, hay partes del cuerpo de Cristo que están en llamas. No exagero. Yo soy un nervio que transmite impulso y efecto. Soy testigo de esa agonía. Somos pobres en relaciones que cruzan líneas culturales. Nuestra distancia relacional nos permite deshumanizar al “otro.” Olvidamos que somos una familia. Fallamos en ver que nuestro bienestar está entrelazado.

“Este cuerpo de Cristo necesita desesperadamente sanidad. Está en guerra consigo mismo. La sanidad comienza dentro de cada uno de nosotros. ¿Qué tipo de fruto estoy cultivando en la sustancia de mi alma? En las comunidades de las que formo parte, ¿estamos juntos buscando el florecimiento de todas las personas?”

El nivel actual de caos en el gobierno federal es una cortina de humo que oscurece aún más nuestra visión. Algunos de nosotros hemos creído la mentira de que la ley y el castigo son justos, pero la compasión es solo para quienes la merecen. Esta falsedad es contraria a la vida y el ministerio de Jesús.

Las leyes tienen su propósito en una sociedad que funciona bien, sin duda. Si estamos impulsados por el amor y la alegría, llenos del fruto del Espíritu, trabajaremos con otros para corregir leyes inmorales y aplicarlas con justicia.

En contraste, hoy el fruto de nuestras políticas y poder se exhibe de manera grotesca. Cada ser humano que sufre en un centro de detención sin recursos legales, cada persona deportada a un país que no es el suyo, cada arresto imprudente, cada niño que llora por sus padres ausentes—no podemos simplemente descartarlos como daños colaterales. Son el fruto del miedo, el resentimiento, la autosuficiencia moral y el deseo de dominar. Esto es lo que sucede cuando las leyes se utilizan como herramientas de opresión.

Este cuerpo de Cristo necesita desesperadamente sanidad. Está en guerra consigo mismo. La sanidad comienza dentro de cada uno de nosotros. ¿Qué tipo de fruto estoy cultivando en la sustancia de mi alma? En las comunidades de las que formo parte, ¿estamos juntos buscando el florecimiento de todas las personas?

Recordamos a nuestros hermanos escuchándonos los unos a otros. Dedicamos el tiempo y la atención necesarios para comprendernos. Elegimos dar pasos simples pero significativos, como unir nuestros corazones en oración. Estos hábitos son transformadores y generan nuevos puntos de conexión que poco a poco nos ayudan a reparar lo que se ha roto.

Al comprometernos con este estilo de vida, cada uno haciendo su parte, honrando el dolor del otro y celebrando las alegrías de los demás, comenzamos a experimentar el cuerpo como Dios lo diseñó. El plan de Dios es que la Iglesia sea un agente de esperanza, sanidad y reconciliación, tanto interna como externamente. Que así sea.

Exploring Church Spaces: Tax-Exemption Issues For Mass. Churches and Religious Organizations

(Clockwise from top left: stevegeer, Joaquín Cobalán, designer491, kuarmungadd, all via Getty Images)

Tax-Exemption Issues For Mass. Churches and Religious Organizations

Cases to know when thinking about innovating church property

by Rudy Mitchell, Senior Researcher

Editorial note: The Emmanuel Gospel Center prepared this resource as part of “Exploring Church Spaces,” a research project designed to highlight stories of innovation and impact already happening in Boston and to help inspire new collaborations and solutions. This document is not to be taken as official legal advice but is for informational purposes only for churches considering new uses and rentals of their property. 

As churches explore ways to more fully use their buildings to further their mission and benefit the community, they also need to consider any potential issues that might affect their tax-exempt status. 

Churches can anticipate and avoid negative impacts by studying relevant state laws and rulings in court cases. 

In Massachusetts, the applicable law on tax exemption for religious organizations is Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 59, Section 5, Clause 11 (M.G.L. c. 59, § 5, cl. 11). Clause 11, the law pertaining specifically to religious organizations, is part of a larger section related to property exemptions. That section includes Clause 3, a separate law pertaining more broadly to charitable organizations. It is important for churches to note the differences in the application of these two clauses to the use of their properties.  

Several court cases discussed in this article shed more light on the interpretation of these property tax-exemption laws. 

Also, when exploring additional uses or rentals, churches should note the distinction between appropriating exclusive full-time rental of space versus allowing occasional use of a space or building still used by the church for its mission and purposes.

Renting to a nonprofit?

Significance

A case involving the La Sallette Shrine and Conference Center is instructive because it considers several different aspects of the tax-exempt status of religious organizations and their various types of property. The rulings here may not always apply to other situations, especially if significant differences exist. However, the La Sallete case does illustrate several issues in determining tax exemption.

Explanation

The La Sallette Shrine and Conference Center in Attleboro, Massachusetts, is a Roman Catholic religious organization. It holds a multi-use property of 200 acres with high visibility because it draws thousands of visitors for its retreats and Christmas festival of lights. While it is not a typical church, it does hold religious services and carries out various forms of religious instruction like other tax-exempt churches. 

The organization’s property included a welcome center, dining hall, gift shop, maintenance and storage buildings, overnight accommodations, a wildlife sanctuary area, and a former convent rented to a nonprofit organization serving battered women. The La Sallette Shrine also rented space to outside organizations for occasional use.

The town sought to tax several parts of the property while the owners defended their tax-exempt status. The court case that ensued, Shrine of Our Lady of La Sallette Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Attleboro, 473 Mass. 660 (2017), was decided in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. 

The case arose when the Board of Assessors of Attleboro sought to raise more taxes by identifying parts of the La Sallete Shrine property as taxable. The Shrine appealed a decision of the Appellate Tax Board to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. The court ruled that the Shrine’s welcome center, maintenance building, and other associated properties were tax-exempt because they were related to carrying out the organization’s mission. 

However, the court did not rule for tax-exempt status for the former convent and the wildlife sanctuary. This is where the subtle but significant difference between the third and eleventh clauses in Massachusetts’ property tax-exemption law mentioned above come into play. 

The Shrine had leased the convent space to a nonprofit organization to use as a safe house for battered women, and the Massachusetts Audubon Society managed the wildlife sanctuary. But it had failed to file for tax-exemption for those two properties under the correct clause. 

According to the case summary, “The safe house and wildlife sanctuary might have been exempt from real estate taxation under G. L. c. 59, § 5, Third (Clause Third), as the property of a benevolent or charitable organization devoted to charitable use, had the Shrine satisfied the filing requirements for such an exemption, but they were not exempt under Clause Eleventh.”

While Clause Eleventh applies specifically to religious organizations and worship-related uses, Clause Third pertains more broadly to charitable uses, including those not explicitly religious in nature.

In its ruling, the court, nevertheless, made clear that it understands a religious organization’s property extends beyond the sanctuary where the religious activity principally takes place. There’s the parking lot, parish hall, offices, and storage areas, to name a few. What matters is that these areas are used in ways connected with the religious worship going on in the sanctuary.

“In interpreting the scope of Clause Eleventh, we recognize that a house of religious worship is more than the chapel used for prayer and the classrooms used for religious instruction. It includes the parking lot where congregants park their vehicles, the anteroom where they greet each other and leave their coats and jackets, the parish hall where they congregate in religious fellowship after prayer services, the offices for the clergy and staff, and the storage area where the extra chairs are stored for high holy days. In some houses of religious worship, all of these portions of property (apart from the parking area) may be located with the chapel in a single building; in others with larger congregations, they may be located in multiple buildings, some adjoining the chapel, some standing alone. We have long recognized that all of these portions of property are exempt from taxation under Clause Eleventh even if no religious worship occurs within these spaces; it suffices that they are used for ‘purposes connected with’ religious worship, Proprietors of the S. Congregational Meetinghouse in Lowell v. Lowell, 1 Met. 538, 541 (1840), or, otherwise stated, purposes that ‘normally accompany and supplement the religious work of a parish.’ Assessors of Framingham v. First Parish in Framingham, 329 Mass. 212, 215 (1952).”  

In addition to the long-term leases of the convent space and wildlife sanctuary, the La Sallete Shrine would also rent space to outside users for occasional use. The court ruled that these uses did not change the organization’s tax-exempt status.

“The occasional or incidental use of such property by an organization exempt from taxation under the provisions of [26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3)] of the Federal Internal Revenue Code shall not be deemed to be an appropriation for purposes other than religious worship or instruction.” 

The lesson here for churches is that while they may not have a convent or a wildlife sanctuary, they may want to rent a designated building or space for the exclusive use of another nonprofit. In that case, they should check on and comply with any filing requirements for an exemption for that usage.

Using the parsonage for another purpose? 

Significance

A case involving a parish in Royalston, Massachusetts, considers the tax-exempt status of a piece of church property that is no longer used for its original purpose but is still used in a way that is connected to and supplements the religious work of the church. 

Explanation

The First Congregational Church in Royalston, Massachusetts, had a parsonage that the congregation’s pastor no longer occupied. However, the church continued to use the space for other church-related purposes. 

A case concerning the property went before the Appellate Tax Board of Massachusetts. In a 2017 decision, the commissioner ruled that the church, whose nearby parsonage was no longer occupied by the church pastor, was, nevertheless, still tax-exempt because the church and church groups still used it for meetings and storage related to the church’s mission. 

The decision stated: “The relevant inquiry is not whether the property is inhabited as a parsonage, but whether its dominant use is ‘connected with,’ religious worship and instruction, and which ‘normally accompan[ies] and supplement[s]’ the religious work of a parish.” 

Letting secular groups use a parish building? 

Significance

A case involving a church in Framingham, Massachusetts, considers the tax-exempt status of a parish building that the church occasionally allows secular community groups to use. 

Explanation

In the early 1950s, the First Parish in Framingham was involved in a court case with the Assessors of Framingham over the occasional use of the church’s parish building by secular community groups. It is an example of a parish with a second large building adjacent to the church. 

The congregation made the building available to various community organizations, such as a historical society, a library committee, a global humanitarian organization, a choral society, a parent-teacher association, and youth organizations for boys and girls. Some made donations to the church, while some did not. These were occasional uses and did not interfere with the regular use of the building by the Sunday School and church groups. 

The tax assessors of Framingham sought to obtain taxes on the building because it was being used on occasion by various secular groups.

In this case, Assessors of Framingham v. First Parish in Framingham, 329 Mass. 212, 215, (1952), the church’s parish building was used partially as a parsonage and partially for Sunday School classes as well as meetings and dinners of church groups. 

A key distinction in this ruling allowing full exemption of the space was that the use by external organizations did not interfere with the dominant, normal religious activities in the space. The church carefully documented the church’s weekly use of each room in the building and identified each external user. The external groups were not given exclusive ongoing use of the spaces. 

The assessors only cited cases where churches rented space for the exclusive use of businesses or tenants; therefore, those cases were not deemed relevant. 

The ruling, which favored the church, read: 

“The occasional use of the rooms by various secular organizations which does not appear to have interfered with their regular use for religious purposes does not, we think, constitute an appropriation for other purposes…In the instant case the occasional use was incidental to the continued and regular occupation of the rooms for religious purposes. The right of exemption from taxation, which depends on the dominant purpose for which the rooms are maintained and their actual use for that purpose, was therefore not affected.”

This case is differentiated from others where the church appropriates a building or space for the exclusive, permanent, non-religious use of a tenant. If a church anticipates that a proposed rental may result in the loss of a tax exemption, it could require the renter to pay the equivalent of the taxes as part of the rental agreement.

As churches consider additional uses for their tax-exempt property, including parsonages and parish houses, they can be guided by various precedents in interpreting the relevant state laws. Churches can expand their church usage in new ways to benefit the community as they continue to focus on their church mission. 

If they emphasize the purposes that “normally accompany and supplement the religious work of a parish,” and do not allow other uses to interfere with those purposes, they will preserve their tax-exempt status and effectively advance their mission.

Supplement

Massachusetts law provides tax exemptions for churches, their houses of worship, and related properties. In Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 59, Section 5 (M.G.L. c. 59, § 5), Clause 11 specifically names a few denominations. However, the exemption applies broadly to many religious organizations, regardless of denomination: 

“Notwithstanding the provisions of any other general or special law to the contrary, houses of religious worship owned by, or held in trust for the use of, any religious organization, and the pews and furniture and each parsonage so owned, or held in irrevocable trust, for the exclusive benefit of the religious organizations, and including the official residences occupied by district superintendents of the United Methodist Church and the Christian and Missionary Alliance and of the Church of the Nazarene, and by district executives of the Southern New England District of the Assemblies of God, Inc., Unitarian–Universalist Churches and the Baptist General Conference of New England, and the official residence occupied by the president of the New England Synod of the Lutheran Church in America, Inc., and the official residence occupied by a person who has been designated by the congregation of a Hebrew Synagogue or Temple as the rabbi thereof, but such exemption shall not, except as herein provided, extend to any portion of any such house of religious worship appropriated for purposes other than religious worship or instruction. The occasional or incidental use of such property by an organization exempt from taxation under the provisions of 26 USC Sec. 501(c)(3) of the Federal Internal Revenue Code shall not be deemed to be an appropriation for purposes other than religious worship or instruction.”

Information from the third clause of the law applies to nonprofits. Churches and religious organizations should consider this clause and similar information in the 501(C) (3) federal tax code. Here is Clause 3A from M.G.L. c. 59, § 5:

“If any of the income or profits of the business of the charitable organization is divided among the stockholders, the trustees or the members, or is used or appropriated for other than literary, benevolent, charitable, scientific or temperance purposes or if upon dissolution of such organization a distribution of the profits, income or assets may be made to any stockholder, trustee or member, its property shall not be exempt.”

***This document is not to be taken as official legal advice but is for informational purposes only for churches considering new uses and rentals of their property. 

Conclusion: Key Takeaways and Next Steps

Churches play a vital role in the social and spiritual fabric of Massachusetts communities. As they seek to steward their properties creatively and missionally—whether through expanded programming, community partnerships, or shared space—they must also remain attentive to the legal frameworks that govern tax exemption. The cases and rulings discussed here highlight the importance of maintaining a dominant religious purpose in property use and avoiding exclusive arrangements that may compromise exemption status.

With thoughtful planning and awareness of legal boundaries, churches can continue to innovate in ways that align with their mission while preserving the protections afforded to them under state law.

Next Steps

As your church considers new ways to use its property, here are several practical steps to help preserve your tax-exempt status while faithfully serving your mission:

• Review your current property uses in light of the primary purpose test: Is each space used in a way that supports or supplements your religious mission?

• Consult with legal or tax professionals familiar with M.G.L. c. 59, § 5 and relevant case law before entering into new rental agreements or usage partnerships.

• Document how spaces are used, especially when occasional or incidental outside uses are permitted. Maintain clear records showing the dominance of religious-related activity. Ensure that any non-religious activities do not interfere with your core religious mission.

• Clarify with renters whether they are receiving exclusive use of the space, and consider including clauses in agreements that address tax liability if exemption is lost.

• File appropriate paperwork if your church wishes to claim exemption under Clause Third for space used by another nonprofit with a charitable purpose.

• Continue learning from peer churches navigating similar challenges and opportunities, and consider joining conversations and trainings offered through local networks or the Exploring Church Spaces initiative.

By taking these proactive steps, churches can confidently explore how to use their spaces more fully—creatively and missionally—while remaining in compliance with Massachusetts tax-exemption laws.

Church Landscape Review: Pressed But Not Crushed

Church Landscape Review: Pressed But Not Crushed

Survival, Resilience & Church Plants of Boston Area New Churches, 2014-2024

Churches share similarities with families, schools, and businesses. Pastors take on roles that often mirror those of parents, teachers, and managers. But at the end of the day, the Church is an entirely different entity. It is a creation of God, entrusted with a ministry of life empowered by his Spirit. That’s why—even amid pressure, hardship, or loss—resilience is possible.  

“We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed,” Paul writes in 2 Corinthians 4:8-9. “Perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed.”  

And as jars of clay holding the treasure of the gospel, we demonstrate that this “all-surpassing power is from God and not from us” (2 Corinthians 4:7).

A large group of newer church communities in Boston is evidence of what happens when churches ground themselves in this spiritual reality. 

The churches that survived those ten years demonstrated several key dynamics:

• Their pastors had clear personal callings and support from mentors and peer groups.

• They overcame challenges by following the concrete solutions that arose when they sought the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

• They started with various outside sources of funding and ensured their pastors didn’t need to work a full-time job outside the church.

• They didn’t wait until they thought they were big enough to plant another church. They made an early and ongoing commitment to multiplication.

These are just a few findings of the Applied Research team at the Emmanuel Gospel Center in Pressed But Not Crushed: Survival, Resilience & Church Plants of Boston Area New Churches, 2014-2024. 

This report is part of the 2025 Church Landscape Review project, which revisits the churches the team had originally interviewed as church plants in a 2014 research study. That project involved in-depth interviews with a diverse group of new churches from different denominations, ethnic groups, and networks. 

Ten years later, EGC revisited the 2014 snapshot and re-interviewed almost two dozen of the original churches to explore how the Boston-area church landscape has evolved over the past decade.

Like other reports in the project, Pressed But Not Crushed includes data, commentary, reflection questions, as well as next steps for ministry leaders. 

Visit the Church Landscape Review project page for more information about the methods, participants, and terminology used in the study. There you will also find a series of reports we’re releasing periodically throughout 2025:

• Executive Summary Report 

• Changing Faces of Faith

• Pastoring Under Pressure

• Open Doors in Boston

• Evolving Vision

Church Landscape Review: Evolving Vision

Evolving Vision

Shifts in Mission Values & Focus in Boston New Churches 2014-2024

In a city like Boston, you would think that, over time, churches would be less apt to wear their faith on their sleeves. They would most likely go easy on the religious language. Perhaps focus less on traditional ministries and more on culturally appropriate issues. Wouldn’t they need to do that to survive? 

A look at a large group of newer church communities in Boston over the last ten years challenges such conventional wisdom.

We would expect any church in the city over the last decade to have seen significant change, and these churches are no different. They experienced shifts in their values, demographic focus, and ministries: 

• Over time, their vision, mission, and values statements became deeper and clearer. By 2024, every church in our study explicitly named Jesus in their statements.

• Churches went from targeting specific demographic groups to focusing on their existing relational networks.

• They put less emphasis on welcome ministries and expanded children and youth ministries, counseling, and generational groups.  

These are just a few findings of the Applied Research team at the Emmanuel Gospel Center in Evolving Vision: Shifts in Mission Values & Focus in Boston New Churches 2014-2024. 

It’s part of the 2025 Church Landscape Review project, which revisits the churches the team had originally interviewed as church plants in a 2014 research study. That project involved in-depth interviews with a diverse group of new churches from different denominations, ethnic groups, and networks. 

Ten years later, EGC revisited the 2014 snapshot and re-interviewed almost two dozen of the original churches to explore how the Boston-area church landscape has evolved over the past decade.

Like other reports in the project, Evolving Vision includes data, commentary, reflection questions, as well as next steps for ministry leaders. 

Visit the Church Landscape Review project page for more information about the methods, participants, and terminology used in the study. There you will also find a series of reports we’re releasing periodically throughout 2025:

• Executive Summary Report 

• Changing Faces of Faith

• Pastoring Under Pressure

• Open Doors in Boston

• Pressed But Not Crushed

Church Landscape Review: Open Doors in Boston

Open Doors in Boston

Outreach, Welcome & New Commitments to Christ in Boston Area New Churches 2019-2023

“Listen! I am standing at the door, knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me” (Rev. 3:20).

Churches in Boston are answering the divine knock at the door. And the results are encouraging. 

They’re opening doors of opportunity: responding to the needs around them with courage and care. As they build trust and partner with local organizations, they’re seeing transformation.

They’re opening doors of belonging: welcoming newcomers to become regular attendees, many of whom have no background in Christianity. 

They’re opening doors of faith: seeing over 1,000 people come to Christ in a five-year period, averaging a new believer every 1.5 days. 

The Applied Research team at the Emmanuel Gospel Center explored these trends in Open Doors in Boston: Outreach, Welcome & New Commitments to Christ in Boston Area New Churches 2019-2023. It’s part of the 2025 Church Landscape Review project, which revisits the churches the team had originally interviewed as church plants in 2014, with the goal of exploring how the Boston-area church landscape has evolved over the past decade. 

Like other reports in the project, Open Doors includes data, commentary, reflection questions as well as next steps for ministry leaders. 

This particular report is also accompanied by a collection of stories behind the data, “Open Doors in Boston: Stories and Reflections.” These encouraging stories are varied and beautiful—stories of healing, community partnerships, long journeys to faith, and moments of encounter with God. They reflect what is possible when churches open their doors and hearts to their neighborhoods, step into the needs around them, and follow God’s lead with creativity and courage.  

Visit the Church Landscape Review project page for more information about the methods, participants, and terminology used in the study. There you will also find a series of reports to be released periodically throughout 2025:

• Executive Summary Report

• Changing Faces of Faith

• Pastoring Under Pressure

• Evolving Vision

• Pressed But Not Crushed

Church Landscape Review: Open Doors in Boston

Open Doors in Boston

Local stories to stir your faith, reflections to expand your vision.

Boston is often described as a secular city on par with the metropolises of Europe that have seen a significant decline in Christianity. But research shows a different narrative emerging.

The Applied Research team at the Emmanuel Gospel Center conducted the Church Landscape Review project in 2024. In this survey of new and growing churches across Greater Boston, we found that God is at work in our city and region. 

As part of the research, the team asked the pastors of these churches for stories of God working through the church to bring people to faith and serve people in the broader community.

The stories that emerged are varied and beautiful—stories of healing, community partnerships, long journeys to faith, and moments of encounter with God. They reflect what is possible when churches open their doors and hearts to their neighborhoods, step into the needs around them, and follow God’s lead with creativity and courage. 

Each story includes a reflection question to help you engage more deeply. Whether you’re a church leader, an aspiring church planter, or simply someone curious about the spiritual landscape of this city, we hope these questions invite you to pray, reflect, and imagine what God might do in your context.

As you read, please note that names and identifying details of people, churches, and organizations have been changed or omitted to protect privacy.

How human migration exposes what’s in our hearts

(Clockwise from top left: Igancio Martin Martin, 4FR, northwoodsphoto, jordachelr, all via Getty Images)

How human migration exposes what’s in our hearts

Migrants, Christians, and Jesus

Many years ago, Sarah Blumenshine helped a young family from Iraq settle into a new life in the United States. They didn’t have a stroller for their child, so Sarah thought perhaps the day had finally come to part with the beloved stroller she had wheeled her kids around when they were young.

Sarah thought this refugee family would treasure the stroller as much as she had. She fantasized about the moment she would give it to them (think Hollywood): a beam of light comes down on them as she passes the stroller onto the next generation.

But movies are not reality. It was a big, heavy stroller that would be difficult to carry up and down three floors in the family’s new apartment. 

“When they moved from a shelter situation into their apartment, and I was going back to clean things up—make sure nothing had been left behind—you know what I found?”

What’s motivating you?

This experience is typical for volunteers stepping into the lives of immigrants and refugees, eager to help. When she saw the stroller, Sarah was in total shock. And then she just had to laugh at herself.

“It was totally about me, it was not about them and what they actually needed,” Sarah told Caleb McCoy on Emmanuel Gospel Center’s Curious City podcast. “If we can be eyes wide open about those things and even have a sense of humor when they happen—not if but when—that’s one thing that I think makes a big difference in our ability to relate to other people.”

Volunteers confronted for the first time with the depth of the pain of the refugee experience feel powerless to do anything. They want to be helpful. They want to be the hands and feet of Jesus. But there are no quick fixes. 

“It’s actually freeing to know that our job is not to fix, our job is to show up,” Sarah said. “We try to show up as much as our best selves as possible and then we have to be open-handed about what happens from there.”

“It’s actually freeing to know that our job is not to fix, our job is to show up. We try to show up as much as our best selves as possible and then we have to be open-handed about what happens from there.”

— Sarah Blumenshine

This dynamic is a lived experience for Sarah as the Director of Intercultural Ministries at the Emmanuel Gospel Center. She has been working as a bridge between churches and immigrant-led organizations for many years. 

The combination of tenacity and tenderness she sees in the immigrant-led space inspires her. Every day these leaders resolve to retain their humanity and joy in the midst of complex challenges and daunting obstacles. 

Who’s shaping your immigration politics?

Over the years, Sarah has seen immigration go from enjoying bipartisan support to succumbing to the politics of fear and suspicion. She acknowledges that getting the information to formulate a sound perspective on the issue is challenging. There’s a lot of noise. And much of it is geared to press our buttons. 

But as Christians, we want to see people the way Jesus sees them. At a basic level, that means seeing them as human beings. That can become challenging when we’re talking politics, but Christians can separate immigration policy from the biblical mandate to love our neighbors as ourselves. 

“I’m talking about the reality that there are people here, and we can either objectify them and weaponize them to achieve a political statement of one kind or another, or we can see them as who they are: as humans, as loved by God,” Sarah said. “We can treat them accordingly: as lovingly and fairly as we know how.” 

There are steps we can take to live as faithful followers of Jesus in our current political climate: 

Slow down. 

Take a step back. 

Reflect on your motivations. 

Name the things you fear. 

Interrogate them. 

Is someone trying to push your buttons for their own agenda?  

“You can come down however you want on policy, but I’m of the persuasion that as followers of Jesus, we do have a biblical mandate, we have a responsibility to love our neighbors,” Sarah said. “These are literally our neighbors: they are people in our cities, in our communities, in our state, in our country. It’s not optional for us.”  

For this and more on Sarah’s conversation with Caleb McCoy, listen to the Curious City episode, “Make Me A Sanctuary … City?”

Church Landscape Review: Pastoring Under Pressure

Pastoring Under Pressure

Challenges & Supports for Pastors of New Churches in the Boston Area Through a Complex Decade (2014-2024)

In the last 10 years, pastors have faced unprecedented challenges in shepherding their congregations. Even veteran pastors admitted they had never seen anything like this during their ministerial careers. 

During the pandemic, almost half of pastors nationwide considered leaving full-time ministry. 

What about pastors in Boston? How many hours a week do they work? What kind of support do they prefer? What type of training do they use to develop other church leaders? What questions would they like to ask other pastors? 

The Emmanuel Gospel Center’s Applied Research team explored difficult questions like these in a study of pastors of new churches in the Boston area from 2014 to 2024. In “Pastoring Under Pressure,” the team analyzed key trends and critical challenges facing these leaders. The report also includes recommendations as well as reflection questions for pastors and church leaders.

This report is part of the larger 2025 Church Landscape Review, a study of newer church communities in the Boston area over 10 years. We will publish the Applied Research team’s findings in a series of reports to be released periodically throughout 2025:

• Executive Summary Report 

• Changing Faces of Faith

• Pastoring Under Pressure

• Open Doors in Boston

• Evolving Vision

• Pressed But Not Crushed

If the Black Church were to disappear, who would miss it?

(Clockwise from top left: wwing, wwing, timeless, MCCAIG, all via Getty Images)

“If the Black Church were to disappear, who would miss it?”

That’s the overarching question Jaronzie Harris and her team led with as they began a data-driven study of the Black Church in Boston.

The team tried to answer a series of questions: “Who’s in the Church? What are they doing? How’s the Church doing? How many churches do we have? What are these Black Christians even thinking about or talking about? Do they even talk to each other?”

Jaronzie Harris, Director, Black Church Vitality Project. Emmanuel Gospel Center

In partnership with several organizations, Harris’s efforts helped establish the Black Church Vitality Project, an initiative close to her heart as a daughter of the Black Church. 

“My love for the Church really comes out of my love for Black people, Black communities,” Harris told the Emmanuel Gospel Center’s Curious City podcast. “Always having that sense of service and a faith centered in hope and love.” 

The team’s research found there are about 250 Black churches in Boston facing multiple challenges. To leverage their collective strength, Harris sought to bring some of these churches together to build relationships for the betterment of the community. She gathered almost a dozen Black churches in close proximity to each other in four predominantly Black neighborhoods of Boston. 

Together, they looked at the changes taking place in their local communities, how their mission and values might need to change in light of what they’re learning about their neighborhoods, and how their churches can take action.

These topics made for vulnerable conversations. And while not everyone is on the same page, Harris said the desire is there among the churches to work together. 

These meetings and discussions between these churches make for a dynamic, relational process that’s transformative in and of itself. It holds up a mirror for the churches to assess themselves in the immediate context of their neighborhoods and the broader culture they live in. 

“My love for the Church comes from my love for Black people,” Harris said, “so if the Church is not serving the people, then what are we doing?” 

For this and more from Harris’s conversation with Caleb McCoy, listen to the Curious City podcast. 

Apple Podcasts | Podbean | Spotify | YouTube

Church Landscape Review: Changing Faces of Faith

Changing Faces of Faith

Shifts in Churches, Pastors, and Churchgoers in Boston-Area New Churches, 2014-2024

Churches have experienced plenty of change and faced much upheaval over the last 10 years. If you could take a snapshot of your church before and after that period, what would it look like? Would you see any big structural changes? How would the leadership of your church have changed? What about the congregation? 

That’s just what the Applied Research team at the Emmanuel Gospel Center did with a diverse group of newer churches in Boston between 2014 and 2024. 

They looked at things like attendance, leadership, and demographics. Their findings in the “Changing Faces of Faith” report show time left little untouched. The churches in the study had to be creative when it came to finding meeting space, facing a pandemic, and navigating leadership changes.    

This report is part of the larger 2025 Church Landscape Review, a study of newer church communities in the Boston area over 10 years. We will publish the Applied Research team’s findings in a series of reports we will release periodically throughout 2025:

• Executive Summary Report

• Pastoring Under Pressure

• Open Doors in Boston

• Evolving Vision

• Pressed But Not Crushed

Church Landscape Review: Executive Summary Report

Executive Summary Report

A Ten-Year Review of Boston-Area New Churches

In 2014, the Emmanuel Gospel Center (EGC) conducted a research study of over 40 church plants in the Boston area. It involved in-depth interviews with a diverse group of new churches from different denominations, ethnic groups, and networks. While the study focused on women in church leadership, it yielded a treasure trove of information on the church planters and their congregations. 

Ten years later, EGC’s Applied Research team revisited the snapshot the 2014 data had produced and re-interviewed almost two dozen of the original churches. The team wanted to examine any shifts in the church landscape over a challenging and tumultuous period.

The research team gathered their findings in a series of reports we will release periodically throughout 2025. The Executive Summary Report provides a broad introduction to the study along with major data trends. The other reports revolve around five different themes:

• Changing Faces of Faith

• Pastoring Under Pressure

• Open Doors in Boston

• Evolving Vision

• Pressed But Not Crushed