What are some ways a church building a five million dollar bridge makes sense?
a bridge to allow relief workers and oppressed people better access to goods and services…
a bridge in an area of the world decimated by a natural disaster…
a bridge in an adopted village…
That would make perfect sense.
But that’s not what is happening here.
No, this is just a good old fashioned materialistic atrocity being championed by an American church that is so disconnected from the real world value of money that it would rather build a five million dollar bridge over a sensitive environmental area like wetlands so that its parishioners can get out of the parking lot in under twenty minutes.
Is there any reason, any reason at all why a megachurch should spend $5
million dollars building a bridge? For a second exit? In a wealthy Georgia suburb?
Andy Stanley tries to explain:
Is it worth it? It all depends. If our mission is to be a church thatʼs perfectly designed for the people who already attend, then we donʼt need a bridge. But if we want to continue to be a church unchurched people love to attend, then yes, itʼs worth it. From my perspective, this is not a “nice to have” option. Honestly, I donʼt want to raise money for, or give money to, something thatʼs not mission critical. I believe creating a second access point allows us to stay on mission. That is why weʼve been working on this for nine years.
This makes me sick. This is completely un-missional. Missional churches are not attractional churches. Missional churches send out their parishioners as missionaries to the world, not bring them to church over a five million dollar edifice set up to speed up their exit and entry?
Your thoughts?