The Christian Chronicle has just posted an article criticizing the notion that the independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ* have been enjoying “phenomenal” growth.
But figures released by the U.S. Religion Census last week show the total number of congregations of instrumental Christian Churches and Churches of Christ has declined over the last 10 years. Meanwhile, the total number of adherents has risen less than 1 percent. The specific figures:
2010: 1,453,160 adherents and 5,293 congregations
2000: 1,439,253 adherents and 5,471 congregations
The comparable numbers for a cappella Churches of Christ:
2010: 1,584,162 adherents and 12,584 congregations
2000: 1,645,645 adherents and 13,032 congregations
I posted the following comment:
For more historical context, the independent Christian Churches/Churches of Christ had 1,213,188 adherents in 1990 (http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_152.html), meaning they grew 19% from 1990 to 2000 — which is indeed a phenomenal growth rate. During the same time, the a cappella Churches of Christ were plateaued.
Oddly enough, the number of congregation in 1990 was 5228, meaning they added 3% more congregations while growing 19% in adherents. Then from 2000 to 2010 they declined about 4% in congregations while growing 1% in adherents. Their congregations are, on average, getting larger (average of 229 in 1990 to an average of 278 in 2010).
I don’t know why the rate of growth declined from 2000 to 2010, but if we’re going to compare the two denominations, we need to include both the 1990 to 2000 figures and the 2000 to 2010 figures — as the 1990 to 2000 figures demonstrate that growth was possible during those years even though we in the Churches of Christ failed to achieve it.
We shouldn’t use the slow growth of the independent Christian Churches from 2000 to 2010 as some sort of excuse for the poor harvest we are producing for our Lord.
My guess is that the independent Christian Churches grew in average congregational size because their smallest churches either closed or merged. It’s a phenomenon the Churches of Christ are seeing as well. The difference is that we’re not replacing the failing churches with new, larger churches because we’re not having much success in church planting — partly due to not trying very hard and partly due to attempting to plant churches on failed models.
Of course, all denominations are struggling with the failure of older, larger churches to grow — except for an exceptional few. Most large churches fail to grow because they’re too inwardly focused — and it’s only when a church is planted with a vision of outward focus — a vision that is preserved and perpetuated by the leadership year after year – that the tendency to become inward focused is overcome.
There is, of course, no good reason that a congregation has to become inwardly focused — but we allow an entitlement mentality among our members, due to a theology that focuses on externals (acts of worship, form of organization) rather than following Jesus and transformation by the Spirit. Changing that would be quite a challenge, but it’s the only path that leads away from eventual death.
After all, if our members are allowed to be selfish and entitled, they aren’t exactly being like Jesus — and if they’re not like Jesus, why are we bothering?
________
* The independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ (often shortened to “independent Christian Churches”) are congregations with roots in the Restoration Movement that are doctrinally nearly identical to the a cappella Churches of Christ except, of course, for the instrumental music. Since they’ve not endured a century of preaching on the Regulative Principle and CENI, they’ve also not suffered nearly as many divisions as the a cappella Churches — the primary division being the Disciples of Christ (Christian Churches), which became a centralized denomination, adopted mainline attitudes, and is dying.
“I don’t know why the rate of growth declined from 2000 to 2010, but if we’re going to compare the two denominations, we need to include both the 1990 to 2000 figures and the 2000 to 2010 figures — as the 1990 to 2000 figures demonstrate that growth was possible during those years even though we in the Churches of Christ failed to achieve it.”
Jay, I would suspect that “new car smell” is wareing off.
Actually Jay I would say that we (having been on the ICOC side of things for almost 3 years) do have a very solid CENI base and also have almost identical issues between “conservative” and “progressive” on a number of doctrinal issues. As with most folks who use CENI however it never seems to apply to the things we actually want to do and since most of the acappella fighting has centered around music styles or the accoutrements of music we “seem” to be less fractious. (If anything the Bible colleges with which I am familiar tend to be closer doctrinally to Freed than to Lipscomb.)
The congregations that are growing among us have the same attributes of growing acappella congregations – focus on Jesus + Paul instead of mostly just Paul, accountable discipleship, community involvement and small groups – or represent church plants that are well tailored to the community in which they are planted by organizations such as the VEF (Virginia Evangelizing Fellowship).
Having been active in the Independent Christian Church most of my life, I can attest to the fact that there are both liberals and conservatives in the that part of the restoration movement. But, the bitter sectarian in-fighting is mostly absent in the Independent Christian Church and the churches enjoy better intra-congregational cooperation and fellowship with each other than do the Churches of Christ. In others words, if another congragation wants to do something a little different than our congregation, the ICC can accept that without resorting to disfellowship.
A fairly recent report in the “Christian Standard”, which is the flagship publication for the ICC stated that the growth of the ICC was mostly due to the emergence of ICC mega-churches. There are many more mega-churches in the ICC than in the CofC. Incidently, the “Christian Standard” has an excellent online website and publishes multiple articles each week. Goggle “Christian Standard” if you’re interested.
Agree with Doug on the Christian Standard. As for intercongregational unity, maybe I’m in an odd area and as I said my experience from the inside is only 3 years worth. We have some folks here who are very much self appointed “popes” who decry and defame each other regularly over issues such as “perfectionism.” As such some congregations do fellowship while others pretend the others just don’t exist.
Todd said, “The congregations that are growing among us have the same attributes of growing a cappella congregations – focus on Jesus + Paul instead of mostly just Paul,”
Todd, believe it or not we agree once again, I have been saying for years (in writing) that the CoC was becoming the “church of Paul, instead of the church of Christ” but naturally I was smacked down, sometimes it just takes some time to soak in. If we take the majority of our teachings from Jesus , and some clarifying statements from Paul, we would be better Christians. IMO. And no I don’t believe every word Paul said was inspired, I don’t feel I have the authority to override what Paul said about this. He said it was not .
Laymond you describe my “hermeneutic” very well. The Gospels first, Acts for how they were first applied, letters to provide “quality control,” OT for illustrations of Godliness in keeping with the above.
I’d say rather than calling us the “Church Of Paul” it would be more accurate to call the “Church Of Paul Except for Romans.”
Here, and I thought we were the Church of Acts… except for the supernatural parts. Oh, and without the community parts. And we don’t usually get the Jewish parts, either, so that leaves us–
“Church of the Acts of the Autonomous Gentiles”
We’re gonna need a bigger sign.
When I read “Church of Paul,” I wonder if the contributor sees the letters from the apostles as “just letters” or as the voice of the risen Lord? Often the letters of the apostles represent the application of Jesus’ teachings into the Gentile world. Correct? So, is there a reason I hear people drawing a distinction? Are not Jesus’ words to the seven churches of Asia, for example, as important as His teachings in the Gospels?
Finally, perhaps it is too easy for us to forget who penned two of the Gospels? Ah yes, the same group of folks who penned apostolic letters.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
Wow..Bruce and I agree… outstanding… Paul didn’t write those letters of his own volition… He was inspired. You can’t have a Jesus book and a Paul book and say they aren’t totally and completely consistent… Or, you have to say that the writings of Paul were not inspired…
I think the Christian Chronicle ought to count all the various sects within the CoC and see how EACH is doing. Why just “a cappella as a point of differentiation?
I was in Memphis this past weekend. Went to CoC with relatives. BORING !! It may have been church but it wasn’t worship.. Nobody was signing 4 part harmony. It was dead as a door nail. Then the preacher encouraged the graduating class to avoid fame, fortune, success, and money…and that after 60 years of distress they would still appreciate Jesus… I wanted to get up behind the lectern and tell them NOOOOO. Don’t listen to this junk.. Be the best you can be. Strive to do the most with the talents God gave you. If you get to the top, be a LIGHT for the gospel in a dark world but don’t settle for mediocrity… Make all the money you can; use it wisely; control it instead of letting it control you; be an influence for good when you get into a position of influence… Good Grief !! My daughter graduated from Lipscomb with a nursing degree…Round of applause…thank you.. The Speaker of the Tennessee House was recognized. Graduate of Lipscomb… The message to the students should have been BE SOMEBODY… and then be an influence. Don’t hind your talents under a bushel…
Jay…this CC article is going to cause a fuss..Things will get worse before they get better…
The growth issue for many is perception. I have asked many on both sides “What would it take to get you to reconsider your position?”. most of them were stumped. You see most of what we believe has to do with what we want to believe not actual evidence.
Price says, ” Wow..Bruce and I agree… outstanding… Paul didn’t write those letters of his own volition… He was inspired.”
Price, How did you gain this information? The word inspired is not used in the KJV it is used twice in the NIV, but not in the way you suggest. Just curious as to how you came to know this.
Job 32:8 But [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Hbr 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Hbr 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, ——————-.
2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.
Can someone, anyone show me where the scriptures say God spoke to any person, apostles or anyone else except through the prophets, and Jesus.Yes I believe God inspired the prophets, and Jesus to speak the truth to his people.
I believe he spoke once from the mountain , so as the people could hear, but they begged him not to speak again, from fear. I don’t remember where “the holy Ghost” spoke at all, If I am wrong please remind me.
And I don’t think anyone suggested ignoring Paul, but rather not ignoring Jesus. Read Paul through the lense of the Gospels.
I suspect all who read this blog are aware of John Shelby Spong’s prediction that ALL churches are going to die… unless they get ahold of his mysticism (out with theism and in with “Ground of Being”) and stop attempting to apply Jesus’ ethical teachings in our day! Evidence grows that his brand of theology well reflects a young generation — that wants freedom. But not just a young generation.
It is likely that some of the boredom we are seeing (I do not question Price) is more despondency — the consequence of believers who have really tried to reach their friends and their friends want little to do with anything that constricts social/sexual freedom. I am hearing that quite a bit in the congregation I am part of.
And I have noticed that what helps is to ask questions, not about a specific teaching, but about whether the tomb is empty. Consistently, people look like they have not even thought of the question. With Spong as our guide (!), it may go a great ways to renewing our hearts, our worship and our sharing a cup of cold water and the Word if we give increased attention to His resurrection.
In Christ,
Bruce Morton
Katy, Texas
@Laymond, the closest I can come to supporting the assertion of Paul, et al, writing through inspiration is Peter’s assertion in 2 Peter 3:2 that recipients of his letter remember, “the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior through your apostles”. Also, Jesus promised The Helper to them, and that He (The Helper) would teach them and bring to their remembrance all that He (Jesus) had said. Paul also apparently thought he was speaking authoritatively for the Lord in 1 Cor. 7, since he parenthetically inserted some statements that were from him, “not the Lord”…
I realize that you cited the example of Paul earlier. But it seems not to support the idea that the Apostles were uninspired…except occasionally.
Laymond, are you suggesting that the letters Paul wrote were in fact just his opinion and not inspired? Were the congregational members of Corinth MORE inspired through their prophetic words than Paul? Seriously? It’s also interesting that you try and support your argument against inspiration by quoting the unknown author of Hebrews, and Paul (odd that you would use his words to support that his words aren’t inspired).
Todd, not saying to ignore the Gospels but if Laymond is right, then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were just giving their opinions and weren’t inspired either which makes the Gospels as potentially inaccurate as Paul… which is heretical thinking IMHO. My position would be that they were all very much inspired and that they are totally consistent with each other. Yes, indeed they should be read and measured together as a whole. But, how can one say that the Holy Spirit in one instance (Mark) is less accurate that He was in another (Paul) ?
Price asked, “Laymond, are you suggesting that the letters Paul wrote were in fact just his opinion and not inspired?”
Well first I don’t know what you mean , when you say “inspired” do you mean he was influenced by the word of God as passed on by prophets of old, and Jesus Christ,? or do you mean that God whispered in his ear what to write.?
I believe both Paul, and Luke were influenced/inspired to write what they wrote by devotion to the word brought by Jesus Christ, no whispering involved. No I don’t believe Paul wrote only out of opinion (as some do today) I believe he wrote for the same reason as Luke did. I believe as much time as Luke spent with Paul he would have mentioned it, if Paul had said he spoke from “inspiration”. And yes there is a difference in speaking out of “inspiration” and being “inspired” to speak.
Emmett, that is not very close, I don’t know that, that would even count in horseshoes, or hand grenades. No one here said that Jesus didn’t pass on the word of God to his apostles, and command them to pass it on to the people.
“but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.”
as they were moved, not as they were told.
Acts 18:9 One night the Lord spoke to Paul in a vision: “Do not be afraid; keep on speaking, do not be silent.
1 Corinthians 2:9-13: “But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: …Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (KJV)
1 Thessalonians 2:13: “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
(KJV)
I find little support for Laymond’s theory that Paul was inspired to write from something he read in the O.T. and was not spoken to by God.
Laymond wrote: “No one here said that Jesus didn’t pass on the word of God to his apostles, and command them to pass it on to the people.”
>>>
As long as I don’t get too finicky about the terminology, and as long as I am not asked to consider this a comprehensive description of divine revelation, I won’t disagree with it. But it is a VERY narrow and material view.
Jesus IS the word of God, he did not “have” the word of God. Jesus did share himself with his disciples (and not just Twelve of them) by both his words and his deeds– hence, the Gospels. Jesus also promised that the Holy Spirit would take what is his (I simply adore the scope of that term) and make it known to us. While there is no doubt that the Twelve were the first-century point men in introducing the Messiah to Israel, to attribute the amazing subsequent outflow of the gospel all over the Mediterranean to just Thirteen Guys is simply not accurate, nor helpful. (It is somewhat like saying “We sent Norman Schwartzkopf to defeat Saddam Hussein.” True as far as it goes, but not an accurate picture of what was actually intended, nor of what actually happened.)
I would reject the idea that we have received a secondhand Gospel, a gospel entrusted by God ONLY to Eleven/Twelve/Thirteen men, who were our sole connection to Jesus. These disciples may have been the first disciples, but they were not the ONLY disciples.
We are not the grandsons of God.
Charles. I have to agree. When one considers the prophetic utterances that were coming out of the church membership to encourage, exhort and edify, it seems that God was giving of Himself through the Holy Spirit through men and women to all that would listen. I Cor 14:25 says that the “secrets of their hearts would be revealed” and that they would be convicted. That didn’t come out of the book of Isaiah. It was information given to a person by the Holy Spirit to share with an individual or group. Paul urged Timothy to stir up the gift within him. No doubt his speaking was inspired by the Holy Spirit for the local community. Barnabas, etc., etc. I believe that men and women today are likewise “informed” by the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised.
Price,
Do not forget this testimony of Paul:
Paul claims he got the gospel by revelation. That revelation did not come from Jesus during his earthly ministry. He claimed that what he wrote were the commandments of the Lord. Peter spoke of Paul’s epistles as comparable to “the other Scriptures.”
While it is true that in 1 Cor 7:40 Paul gives his judgment regarding whether a widow should or should not marry, even there he adds “and I think that I have the Spirit of the Lord.”
Does Paul ever give his opinion? Possibly. Even then, his judgment is colored by his walk with God in the Spirit.
This is not to worship Paul, but to recognize the way in which the God whom we worship chose to use him.
Jerry…you make it even more abundantly clear that Paul was speaking what Jesus had told him to speak. I guess I just assumed that everybody understood and accepted that the majority of the N.T. text was indeed “God-breathed”…but then there’s that old adage about assuming.
Jerry, I believe I used to have arguments with Patrick Mead over this very subject, I suggest you read Patric’s latest post.