Lately, there’s been quite a lot press coverage concluding that the church in America is dying. Much of this coverage comes from the Christian publishing industry, eager to sell books on how to reverse this trend.
(Forgive the cynicism, but it’s sad how quickly the Christians with books to sell are among the first to jump on the church-is-dying bandwagon.)
However, Ed Stetzer, who works with the Southern Baptist Churches on church growth issues, disagrees.
He argues that the drop in the number of self-identified “Christians” in national surveys simply reflects the decision of many nominal, uncommitted Christians to no longer pretend that they are really Christians.
In other words, no longer does the culture insist that we pretend to be Christians when we really aren’t. Therefore, the decline in “Christians” is really just a truing up — as people begin to answer such surveys more honestly.
Around 75 percent of Americans call themselves Christians—they “self identify” as Christians, regardless of how others might define them. I find it helpful to separate those who profess Christianity into three categories: cultural, congregational and convictional.
Now, these are NOT exact numbers, but broad categories. The numbers are different from region to region, but as a whole, the categories might be helpful.
The first category–Cultural Christians–is made up of people who believe themselves to be Christians simply because their culture tells them they are. They are Christian by heritage. They may have religious roots in their family or may come from a people group tied to a certain religion, e.g., Southern Evangelicals or Irish Catholics. Inside the church, we would say they are Christians in name only. They are not practicing a vibrant faith. This group makes up around one-third of the 75 percent who self-identify as Christians—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The second category–Congregational Christians–is similar to the first group, except these individuals at least have some connection to congregational life.They have a “home church” they grew up in and perhaps where they were married. They might even visit occasionally. Here again though, we would say that these people are not practicing any sort of real, vibrant faith. They are attendees. This group makes up another third of the 75 percent—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The final group–Convictional Christians–is made up of people who are actually living according to their faith. These are the people who would say that they have met Jesus, He changed their lives, and since that time their lives have been increasingly oriented around their faith in Him. Convictional Christians make up the final third of the 75 percent—or about a quarter of all Americans.
The Church is not dying. It is just being more clearly defined.
Interestingly, since 1972 and according to the General Social Survey, the percentage of the final type of Christian in the U.S. population has remained generally stable.
What do you think: Is this good news?
Stetzer would be the first to admit that his own Southern Baptist Churches are now in absolute numerical decline in the US — in a trend that closely parallels the declining numbers in the Churches of Christ.
However, while I can’t speak to the Baptists, my impression is that the decline in Church of Christ numbers is quite real, resulting from our children and grandchildren joining community churches or other denominations or, sadly, leaving institutional Christianity altogether.
Among Churches of Christ, I don’t see a truing up so much as actual departures of highly committed families.
On the other hand, non-denominational community churches continue to enjoy rapid growth (despite the many naysayers who object to this expression of Christianity). I’m sure many of our former members are helping to fuel this growth.
There are those who argue that house churches are also rapidly growing, but it’s incredibly difficult for statisticians to track house churches, because they don’t report to a denominational headquarters and don’t appear in the Yellow Pages.
In this part of the country, I don’t see that house churches are being particularly effective. In fact, the church plants that have been most effective here have been planted in store fronts, movie theaters, or other large spaces. But that’s just my experience here in West Alabama.
In short, I see the institutional church as continuing to be the core of American Christianity, at least here in the South. I don’t see house churches, coffee shop churches, or the like as having a measurable impact on the growth of Christianity. (That could change, but at this point, those are the results as I see them.)
On the other hand, I see a reshuffling of the deck, as Christians are much less loyal to their denominational ties and so select churches for reasons largely unconnected to denominational distinctives.
So what do you think? Do you see the church as in numerical decline? Or are we enduring a time of resifting and redefining what it really means to be a Christian? Are we headed in a good direction? Or are we merely recreating church in the image of contemporary culture once again?
I previously lived in the DC area and the CoC was hemorrhaging. 50% left for community churches. We now live in Southeast Georgia and most institutional denominations are dying but community Churches are thriving. We now go to a Christian church that meets in a school. We are baptizing and growing like crazy. The ministers are inspired and passionate. The members are very warm and happy. It is quite remarkable.
Luke 8:18 and Revelation 2-3 are relevant. Boutique churches are demographically based and do not fit the vision of those Scriptures that indicate a wide demographic range is present in a given church. When one speaks of “dying” churches, the key is the source of life–the Spirit, the presence of Christ, the Word of God–John 6:63.Matthew 4:4. To the degree that the church is unimpressed with the Word, it is dying or already dead–“You have a name for being alive, but you are dead.”
Ours is growing. I can remember only one week in the last several months that we did not have baptisms, adults by the way. In the last two weeks I talked to old friends who moved away from this area to north Arkansas. They couldn’t find a coc that was not legalistic. They now are members at a small independent start up and as happy as can be. Once people discover that God really, really loves them they will not settle for the fear based teaching that is prevalent in many churches of all stripes.
As for the DC area, I concur with Skip. However, there are 3 groups that are growing, the Catholics, Episcopalians, and the Orthodox Christians, in addition to the community churches around fairfax. Those 3 groups know that the people they are gaining did not come from those backgrounds, but they are welcoming them. The episcopal churches are back to having baptisms and confirmation classes and are even asking what they did to grow. They never tried to be cool nor switched to power point. Another Part of the reason is that they are liturgical and have the traditional “11-minute homily” focusing on the gospel portion of the day, taken in context. There is no proof texting, happy/clappy, feel good, “God has a plan for your life”, etc. Also, the priests in those congregations have all seen hard times in their own lives and don’t hesitate to mention it when appropriate. They also know what is going on in the real world.
For those from the south, DC is a city that does not follow convention and most people do not stay there over the weekends unless they have to. This means that people are in and out all the time and live here for a year or two and then move on. These churches are good at emailing people and getting information out through modern methods.
My experiences are similar to Royce’s… People that I’ve know forever left the CoC because of the determination to shame one into living according to a set creed and the bashing of others who didn’t accept that creed. Also, it’s quite evident when a group decides that they don’t want the HS to interfere with their assemblies or their theology. Why go to a church where God isn’t allowed in ?? I’ve seen similar results from “dead” Baptist congregations. I believe people are looking for a relationship with God, not a dogma or creed..
Addendum to post above–With precious few exceptions– churches don’t offer study of Biblical languages to their members. Synagogues teach Hebrew and, I think, Mosques teach Arabic. Only Christians seem not to appreciate the importance of reading their own Scriptures in the original languages–why is that?. Given the fact that theology is encased in words–, Given that no one would ever be accused of being an” expert” in French Literature if he did not read French, yet we call people “experts” in Scriptures who can only read them in translation. A.T. Robertson wrote The Minister and His Greek New Testament long ago. I seem to recall that his book refers to circles of Christian business men who met weekly to read their Greek New Testaments together. I understand that these men were educated in an era when Greek and Latin were taught in their schools, but it presents such a vision of what it means to embrace the thought that “man does not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceeds from the mouth of God.” In our own era, a group is more likely to meet in order to discuss the latest best seller found in the Religion section of the bookstore. Church leaders frequently seem to “live” by every word that proceeds from a favorite author, or every word that proceeds from their group’s venerable tradition. Church members “live” by what church leaders feed them, what they see on television, by the devotionals they read online, or the Christian music they hear. That amounts to settling for too little in this great “age of information.” . Some are aware that the Renaissance and Reformation movements were anchored in scholarship which insisted on viewing texts in their “original” languages. In churches, this is a Leadership issue. Titus 1:8 provides one aspect of Paul’s job description for Elders–“encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.” How is that best done, over the long haul, and without deference to social position or fiscal holdings?” An overseer is “entrusted with God’s work” (verse 7), so he must “hold firmly to the trustworthy message.” How might he best do that? I suggest that one aspect of that degree of devotion God’s Word is to immerse himself in Scripture, and–to the degree that he can learn the words that God actually provided–he should. But, of course, there are any number of rationalizations that allow us to avoid demanding tasks, especially those that require humility and hard labor.
How does this point relate to the question posed? Again, the Renaissance, the Reformation, and Alexander Campbell’s activities in what came to be called Restoration tell the tale.
“This group makes up around one-third of the 75 percent who self-identify as Christians—or about a quarter of all Americans.”
Needless to say, that if 75% of our nation truly were “Christian” we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in.
If we just preached the same message we sing.
The teaching the fewer of us there are the more certain we are on the right path to heaven is still the overriding thought around here. As long as that persist, those of the COC will continue leaving to other places to worship the God that loves us.
The day of cars lining up behind and in front of the vehicle hauling the one to be baptized to a creek or pond to be baptized while being so afraid they might have an accident and not be able to be baptized and spend eternity in hell because of it is fast fading.
Folks trust God to see the intent of the heart to make His judgment. The legalist only see the accident so most have left or are leaving those that only see the command was not followed so they are burning in hell.
Just had a long lunch with a Church of Christ friend. He was in a CoC in South Georgia for 15 years and the church kept shrinking (now 60 members total). He finally suggested to the elders and preacher that they should have a plan for growth. No one volunteered so my friend put together goals and a path to achieve them. He presented it to the stone faced elders and no one reacted, shot it down, or praised it. He followed up by asking the elders what they felt. They quit talking to him without an explanation. So, he and his wife left the church out of discouragement. They were frustrated that the church had no future plans and they were content with their deadness.
It’s obvious that many here are thinking in denominational terms. Too many within Christianity think in denominational terms. I mean, if their group does or says things a certain way, well, that is what they will know. But the church that Jesus built is not resting on human effort or understanding, nor is it shrinking or becoming less effective in reaching the lost. That is because the LORD is the head of the body, the church, and He does not fail in achieving His will to save the lost. ALL of the earthly human “churches” are based on a man made understanding of what it all means. Each has their own peculiar manner of saying and doing things. But the LORD’s true church is not based on the doings of man…it’s based on the doings of the One Man who fulfilled the Law and brought atonement for mankind. It is a matter of faith in Him that we ever enter into the Covenant relationship that He provides, and if ALL the churches would stop promoting their own agenda, and instead, focus on praising and glorifying the Savior, then, speaking in human terms, there would not be so large a departure from Christianity or what people call church. I personally believe the only church that matters is the LORD’S church…built and redeemed by Him. And He knows those that are His! The LORD has not weakened, nor turned away or altered His truth to satisfy man. The ones that genuinely belong to His one true church are there because of their acceptance of Jesus as the true Son of the living God. How does anything we do or say change that? If there is any disconnect today I would suggest that it lies in moving away from the focus of the faith…Christ and Him crucified. It’s ALL about Him and NOT about us!!!
I thought I would offer that, for what it’s worth!
the numbers are not good — however we categorize/slice them.
> I heard a Stadia report, looking at the general U.S. population, that less than 5% of 15-25 age group is in church on any given Sunday. That report basically said that the % of attendance drops by 50% as one move down the age grouping, starting with 65-55, 55-45, …. 25-15.
> This quote looks at attendees and analyzes that “18-34 year olds make up less than 10% of the membership. Additionally, the study found a steep drop in the financial health of churches.” is not the same perspective, but equally alarming.
— http://www.examiner.com/article/church-attendance-is-down-as-age-of-church-attendees-goes-up
Skip (above) refers to his friend who experienced “the high shun.” *”High” because practiced by leaders. The shun, though wordless, conveys a clear message,”We passive-aggressively urge you to leave our church–the sooner, the better–and by so doing, you will leave us alone.”
I recently suggested to some friends (a minister, and two who are going to school to be ministers) that we should just use the term ‘Christians’ to refer to those who are practitioners of Christianity (as in attend church regularly) rather than tying it to beliefs (can be rather problematic–some Buddhists say they believe in God not to mention the whole Nones thing) or salvation (I’ll leave that one to God). I meant this just so it would be a more useful identifier. They were quite offended. Religious identity always seems to have issues when it’s done through surveys (the category of Nones again is a problem) or ‘self-identification.’
Zach, after reading your resume, I would venture to say not offended enough to want to fight. 🙂
Stetzer’s assessment merely starts the decline in the past and suggests that we only now started measuring it appropriately. This does not contradict the general observation.
However, the distinctions he offers are useful in getting us to think a bit outside the church roll. His is, however, a perspective from inside the tower, with the sort of values which include the fortress without seeing it. Zach’s definition is reflective of this view, defining “Christian” as one who attends church regularly. One must not mistake correlation with identification.
What may be accurately said is that church attendance and membership are indeed declining. It is not wise to jump over this fact to the conclusion that the church is dying. Such a leap hops right over WHY believers are leaving the religion clubs. We prefer not to face the idea that this trend might indicate a long-term corrosion of these structures, rather than just being a symptom of the world going to hell in a handbasket faster than we thought. The same lack of compassion and community that has plagued the evangelical church historically is no longer being excused by believers who felt no freedom to leave the club. More see that freedom now, and leave the local club.
I am reminded of the pizza joint whose business declined and the owners became experts in shifting trends in the neighborhood demographics, in the fluctuating economic climate and in the decline of general discretionary spending… but never checked their own recipe.
Don Wade, thank you for your post. The point is to glorify God, to accurately and honestly tell of Creator: Father , Son, And Holy Spirit. Learning about grace in real time, being thankful for its fullness and making efforts to let it go towards others is about all we are capable of. Thank God for people with the ability to capture their thoughts and share. Prayers, Jay.
Pingback: Monday’s Links To Go | Tim Archer's Kitchen of Half-Baked Thoughts