We are reflecting on Why They Left: Listening to Those Who Have Left Churches of Christ
Yeakley demonstrates that the problem of plateaued and declining numbers is not unique to the Churches of Christ. Most denominations are suffering similar problems.
However, the Churches of Christ have been plateaued (near zero growth) for decades, going back to 1980, whereas in the latter part of the 20th Century, many denominations enjoyed dramatic growth.
Thus, during the 1990s, the Churches of Christ grew 2.7% per decade (not year), whereas the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ grew 18.5% — despite being doctrinally nearly identical to the Churches of Christ other than their use of instrumental music and the willingness of some (not all) congregations to participate in state conventions and societies for cooperative work.
Hence, yes, it’s true that our problems stem in part of larger social trends in the U.S. But, no, that’s not the whole story. Others have managed to overcome these trends.
Yeakley reports that, as of the early 1990s, only 55% of children growing up in a Church of Christ remain affiliated with the Churches of Christ after they leave home. Of the 45% who leave, 33% never return. The remaining 12% leave but return, generally when they marry and have children.
A more recent study focuses on those graduating from high school from 1997 to 2006. Of these, 58.2% remain members of a Church of Christ; 21.1% have transferred to another denomination; and 20.7% have no church affiliation at all.
Given that some of these graduates may yet marry, have children, and return to church, the numbers are fairly consistent with the earlier study.
Yeakley points out that the retention rate jumps to 85% for students who attend a Church of Christ affiliated university — but this is not necessarily a credit to the university. It may be that students who choose such a university are just naturally more loyal to the denomination of their youth.
Yeakley has dug a little deeper. He’s found that active youth ministries improves retention. So does a challenging curriculum in adult Bible classes! This makes sense, given that parents are, by far, the largest influences on their own children. Churches that work hard to encourage real discipleship among adults will quite naturally have better results among their children.
For parents with specific church work assignments, the retention rate for children leaps to between 75% and 80% — if both parents are visibly involved. When only one parent is active in church, the retention rate is 50%. If neither parent is visibly involved, the rate is 20%.
I’ve long taught parents that the children need to see that church matters to them. This means that both parents have to be visibly involved — especially the father, since so often the mother is active and the father is not.
Further, I’ve taught that parents need to routinely make decisions that place Christian choices over secular choices. Therefore, a decision to go on a mission trip rather than play in the baseball all stars will make a dramatic impact on the child for the better. If baseball and school always prevail over church, the kids will learn their parents’ true priorities, not their stated priorities.
I’ve taken two of Yeakley’s charts and simplified them considerably to make a point —
| Still part of a Church of Christ | Joined another denomination | Total Still Affiliated with a Christian church | Unaffiliated | |
| Much more progressive | 39% | 46% | 85% | 15% |
| A little more progressive | 55% | 30% | 85% | 15% |
| Middle of the road or moderate | 62% | 18% | 80% | 20% |
| A little more conservative | 58% | 13% | 71% | 29% |
| Much more conservative | 40% | 15% | 55% | 45% |
He asked Churches of Christ to self-identify as “conservative,” “progressive,” or “moderate” per the above. There’s no definition of these terms given, but the readers know how we in the Churches of Christ think of ourselves.
Notice that conservatism strongly pushes its children out of organized Christianity. The overall retention rate is the highest among the most progressive Churches — but those Churches are losing half or more of their children to other denominations — meaning that they won’t be able to replace their losses with transfers from other progressive congregations. Those young Christians will be more likely to join a community church than another progressive Church of Christ when they relocate.
The highest retention rate within the Churches of Christ is for the “moderate” Churches, who keep 62% of their own children within the Churches. But 1 out of 5 of their own children leave organized religion!
Clearly, the more conservative versions of Churches of Christ are driving our children away from Jesus. I can see no other way to read the data. They grow up hating attending church, and have no interest in merely changing brands.
And I’m sure all the readers have friends (or former friends) who’ve been driven away from Jesus by the legalists among us. This is no surprise — as very sad as it is.
Those churches retain only 40% of their own. Therefore, they will rapidly decline in numbers and die. It may take a few decades, but their time is past if they don’t repent.
But even moderate Churches lose 1/3 of their own children. This is much better, but still unsustainable. If we retained 100% of our children, we’d barely break even, because white Americans are barely having enough children to replace their own numbers (and the Churches of Christ are overwhelmingly white). It takes a very effective evangelism effort to succeed when you’re bleeding 1 out 3 of your own kids — or you have to steal sheep from the more legalistic churches in town.
The progressive Churches do the best at keeping their children involved in Christian community, but the times when they could grow by attracting members from the legalistic Churches are ending. That pond is about fished out. They’d better get busy doing evangelism, too.
You see, progressive Churches used to grow by being the most grace-filled, Christ-centered Church of Christ in town and having excellent programs. Thus, a disproportionate number of Church of Christ members moving to town would place membership there. Dissatisfied members of more conservative Churches in town would transfer. The progressive Church would grow.
Those days are about gone. Time to get busy planting seed.
Yeakley reports quite a bit more data in this chapter, but I want to emphasize just one: the retention rate for children attending a Church of Christ university is the same as the retention rate for children attending a secular university while active in a Church of Christ campus ministry.
My church does campus ministry. It’s good to know that the odds of our students remaining faithful members is just as good as if they attended Faulkner or Lipscomb.
But, of course, the vast majority of Church of Christ young people who attend a state college aren’t active in campus ministry. It’s only about 1 in 10 at the University of Alabama. And most campuses don’t even have a campus ministry.
Tragically, our churches are often too small to support one, and too contentious to cooperate in pooling resources to afford one. It’s a colossal problem that is clearly reflected in our plummeting retention rates.
49% of our children attend a secular university. More than half of those never return to the Churches of Christ.
Three parts of the solution are —
* Fleeing legalism and adopting a Christ-centered theology.
* Both parents being better examples of committed service within the Kingdom.
* Establishing campus ministries.
There’s much more to be said, but those are three steps that are concrete and very doable. You may have to change congregations, but raising a child in a legalistic church puts her relationship with Jesus in great jeopardy.
The statement “Yeakley has dug a little deeper. He’s found that active youth ministries improves retention. So does a challenging curriculum in adult Bible classes!” makes sense, indeed. A challenging curriculum for adults and teens helps break down the fear of what is “outside” the brotherhood walls. And make no mistake about it, teens sense at an early age of how much the adults of the church fear “outside influence”; and this makes the teen feel odd rather than bold.
The boldness comes from a congregation being open, not only to the spirituality of others, but to intellectual and creative challenges. The freedom of books and art can take a heart and mind that feels odd and different and create it into one that knows it has something to offer this world. The city on a hill is populated by those that shine.
No, not everyone has to be a scholar or a painter or a writer. But I believe that a journey through the prophets and the Psalms from time to time, where the message is that a contrite heart and being God’s human being for other human beings is better than sacrifice (religious routine) is a good start.
I suggest integrating Yeakley’s statistics with a broader historical perspective. A great book titled “The Churching of America 1776-2005” looks at the rise and fall of various denominations over that time period. Quoting from the introduction:
The book approaches the topic from the perspective of economics — looking at the potential market size and the market share, and how the market share changes over time. Over and over, those churches that have a low cost of membership decline, and those with high expectations of their members grow. It’s not about things like instruments and communion cups, but about insisting on righteousness. The more a church becomes like the world around it, the less compelling is the case for being a part of that church.
Jay,
Two items
(1) Salaries
Does Yeakley look at the salaries of staff at congregations that retain members and their children?
(2) I object to some of the words you are using.
The more conservative versions of Churches of Christ are “driving away” children who “grow up hating attending church.” Harsh verbs for conservative brothers
while moderate brothers “lose” 1/3 of their children. How does one line in the table infer “hating” while another line merely infers “losing?”
Jay,
I was just wondering if Yeakley breaks down any of these student statistics along gender lines? I would guess that more women than men might break away from the Church of Christ once they have flown the nest. Especially if they have leadership qualities.
Yeah Jay, why the need to claim that the children of conservatives who leave were “driven away from Jesus” and “hated attending church”? You follow those blasts with saying we all know people who have been “driven away from Jesus by the legalists among us”.
Yet, the moderates merely “lose one third of their children”?!?
I also notice how you regularly describe the churches who are very weak on doctrinal emphasis (no church discipline, accepting any type of “baptisms”, allowing
women to preach, etc) as “grace filled” and “Christ Centered”.
Are you serious? SMH
Hank, I do not know your back ground. But I would guess that you attend a church that has Sunday School, uses multiple communion cups, has fellowship meals insided the church building, and supports orphan homes. Well, to those who do NOT practice what I mentioned YOU are part of the “doctrinally weak”.
That aside, the teens and young adults who are driven away by legalism are countless. The fact of the matter is legalistic churches have the attitude toward young people, or anyone else for that matter, whom they think have “wandered from the truth” of “Let them go”. But when that reality is brought out they claim to be insulted and wounded.
When young people leave the CoC many leaders and teachers insist that the young people have the problem. Problems they may have, or may not. But often when they feel settled, get married and have children, many of them return to church…just not to the CoC.
Those churches retain only 40% of their own. Therefore, they will rapidly decline in numbers and die
-I would assume thats the hope of many here.
But even moderate Churches lose 1/3 of their own children. This is much better, but still unsustainable
-the question has already been asked. What are they doing wrong since apparantley their kids dont hate church and arent being driven away by legalists?
The overall retention rate is the highest among the most progressive Churches — but those Churches are losing half or more of their children to other denominations
-And what would you have the Progressives do? As long as they still are involved in some form of Christianity what difference does it make? Why are you losing half of your kids?
John,
You missed the point. Refusing to consider the un-immersed as Christians does not equate to being legalistic.
Neither does considering people Christians who have said the “sinner’s prayer ” instead of being immersed equate to being “grace filled” and “Christ centered”.
Its interesting how so many have convinced themselves that ignoring, accepting, and/or not opposing unbiblical practices makes them “grace filled” and “Christ centered”.
Amen, gt!
Yeah, since the kids “hating church” and being “driven away from Jesus” is not a problem of the moderates and progressives, WHY are so many untold thousands of youngsters abandoning their churches?
Too much love and grace for them to stay?
An over emphasis and focus on Jesus?
A lack of legalism?
Hank,
I suspect one reason they might be leaving is too many people in the Church with a self-righteous and arrogant attitude. Ring any bells?
Ahem. When did churches start having children?
In my world, PARENTS have children. Children who have a religious affiliation get it secondhand. In other words, it is not really their affiliation at all, but their parents’ affiliation.
So, what we are seeing that when children of CoC parents get to make a choice as to their affiliation, only about half choose the affiliation which their parents have. This is interesting, first of all because of simple inertia. It is easier to continue than to change, especially when continuing has a clear benefit (getting along with Mom and Dad) and changing has a significant cost (often a painful breach in the parent/child relationship).
This suggests a couple of things: First, that there clearly exists a strong motivation of some sort for those children of CoC parents to leave their parents’ affiliation. This is more than just a teenage exploration or a drift due to distraction. Almost half the young people reared in the CoC intentionally climb a high fence to leave. Sorry, but this has a Berlin Wall scent to it. How many Catholic or Pentecostal or Lutheran kids are climbing that fence in their twenties to get INTO the CoC?
Second: Yeakley could not measure how many CoC youth who remain do so primarily to get along with Mom or for some reason other than a personal attachment to the CoC. But nobody should doubt that this is a significant number. Just ask members who left in their thirties why they did not leave in their twenties.
Add group A– who pay a price to leave the CoC– and group B, young people who would leave, but who find the personal price currently prohibitive, and I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that less than half of the young adults reared in the CoC found the experience positive enough to want to continue it in their own adult lives.
So, the question becomes “Just WHAT is so unattractive”? We should be careful here. The temptation is to blame anyone but ourselves. The pizzaria that cannot keep customers can blame the economy, or the fickle customers, or the location, or the competition… but none of these things are at the heart of the matter. Fact is, pizza is a hot-selling product to today’s consumer. Americans buy pizza by the ton. If they won’t buy YOUR pizza, it’s not them, it’s the way you make pizza.
The really sad thing is that the next target for blame is often the gospel itself. We blame the nature of the Good News, and stand in pious contempt of the many who choose the broad way to destruction. The reason they don’t like our pizza is because they don’t know what pizza is supposed to taste like, and we do. The customer apparently does not like “real pizza” at all, so what are we to do? We are the only ones who make it the way God makes it, and people don’t like HIS recipe. Yep, we actually have the nerve to make our failure God’s fault.
Yeakley suggests that maybe it’s not the kids, and it’s not the gospel. It’s us. If he’s right –and so far, there’s no reason to think he’s not– the CoC can repent and learn better the true nature of the Christ and his Good News, or they can patch the balloon with youth ministers and mission trip fundraisers, in hopes of slowing the descent. Or they can go on the same way, a slow slide into irrelevancy, even among those who were born to their adherents.
Parents, it’s time to ask yourselves if your living sample of the life of Christ is something that anyone wants to buy. Your children have no choice –for now. What will happen when they get to choose?
Perhaps if the COC denomination were to see the Man Jesus, rather than worshiping sacraments, and come to know God and His love, grace and mercy He’s had since the beginning of this earth and all He created on it, instead of limiting who can come to Jesus then perhaps other people will see Him in you and will want to know Him.
Doug,
Actually, the bell rang as soon as you chimed in!
Wow Hank,
Why so defensive? You don’t like the numbers so you attack the messenger and the way he presents the numbers.
The way the coc is losing members it seems the emphasis would be more on how to stem the tide and less on pointing out the “you have problems too” so I’m not going to listen.
So very sad.
The ‘challenging curriculum in adult Bible studies’ is essential. I don’t believe you can emphasize that too strongly. And, you need to immerse yourself in the Bible text itself.
Do you have any statistics on the retention rate of your youth at UCC itself?
I dont deny there is a problem. A huge problem. And I dont think it has much to do with IM or worship styles. If thats all that mattered then the progressive churches would be retaining a better %. I believe young people are looking for a genuineness they are not finding in the churches of their upbringing-whether conservative or progressive. They dont see it played out in their parents lives often and they crave it.
I dont believe a more meaningful or relevant worship expereience is at the core of this searching although I dont discount it’s significance. It’s deeper.
Orion,
Truth be told, I sometimes believe it would be good for all of the numbers of all of the “churches” to drop all the way down to zero! And by “churches” I mean the “churches” of modern day America. With the tax ID’s, expensive properties, big buildings, paid proffesional staffs, the clergy / laity distinctions, and
such. So hon
…so honestly, I think the “church” looks and goes about doing things a lot different than it should. I think the whole thing needs to be deleted and started over where “church” is not a building with massive budgets as any other business today.
But, it is true that the language is a lot harsher towards the non progressives and in an unfair way. Of course, the progressives have home field advantage here.
But what do you think, Orion? If the children of conservatives who leave are being “driven away from Jesus” and always “hated attending church”, why then are the children of the progressives leaving too? Since they don’t hate attending church and are not being driven away from Jesus in their grace filled Jesus centered environments not existing in the conservative churches?
..so honestly, I think the “church” looks and goes about doing things a lot different than it should. I think the whole thing needs to be deleted and started over where “church” is not a building with massive budgets as any other business today.
But, it is true that the language is a lot harsher towards the non progressives and in an unfair way. Of course, the progressives have home field advantage here.
But what do you think, Orion? If the children of conservatives who leave are being “driven away from Jesus” and always “hated attending church”, why then are the children of the progressives leaving too? Since they don’t hate attending church and are not being driven away from Jesus in their grace filled Jesus centered environments not existing in the conservative churches?
Sorry, cell is trippin..
I *believe* that Jay has stated in the past that kids are leaving the progressive COC nearly as fast as the legalistic COC… the difference is, a disproportionate number of the legalistic kids leave Christianity all together, whereas the progressive kids move on to community churches.
So one group is just leaving the COC, the other group is leaving Jesus.
Does the Bible talk about retention rates? No. It does talk about training up a child in the way of the Lord and then it is likely (not automatic) that they will not turn away from it when they get old even enough to decide on faith for themselves. The number one molder of a child’s mind and spiritually is their parents not the local congregation. The key is they decide for themselves.
I can’t find the specific link but here is one that will suffice showing that the real problem goes deeper.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm
The younger generations are leaving organized religion (not just the c of C) in droves.
The top three reasons stated by a secular sociologist are:
1. An abject unwillingness to synthesize the Bible and Science.
2. The extreme politicization of Christian morals into goverenment and civics).
3. The insistence that their brand of Christian religion is right and everyone else is wrong.
The c of C would do it self well to focus on these issues rather than what drives a retention rate. Just because at kid grows up in the cofC and decides he more closely aligned with the Christian church or Baptist is nothing compared to a kid who grows up and decides he doesn’t believe in Jesus at all.
Joe correctly observes that it is parental influence which is paramount. It appears from Yeakley that kids whose parents are highly engaged in the activities of their local congregation are more likely to stick to that denomination.
Now, that being a reality, what do you figure would be the track for kids whose parents were highly engaged with Jesus on an intimate and constant basis?
Hank,
You said,”Truth be told, I sometimes believe it would be good for all of the numbers of all of the “churches” to drop all the way down to zero! And by “churches” I mean the “churches” of modern day America. With the tax ID’s, expensive properties, big buildings, paid proffesional staffs, the clergy / laity distinctions, and
such. So honestly, I think the “church” looks and goes about doing things a lot different than it should. I think the whole thing needs to be deleted and started over where “church” is not a building with massive budgets as any other business today.”
I understand your sentiment and have had the same thoughts. We certainly waste way too many brain cells trying to figure out our one hour on Sunday morning rituals, all while paying lip service (at best) toward loving each other and the lost within our spheres of influence. If we loved each other like Jesus loves us we would be keeping our kids and drawing others into our fellowships. As it is we love only those who are most like us and reject the prostitutes, tax collectors, alcoholics, dancers, mixed bathers, instrumentalists, one cuppers, etc (ad nauseum) as unworthy of our love, acceptance and fellowship. How do we expect to call sinners our of their lives of sin when all they see and receive from “religious” folks is judgement and condemnation. Jesus’ example was eating with and accepting the tax collectors and sinners. We can’t even seem to accept a brother who dares to worship differently than we do. We must quit condemning and dividing over things NOT having to do with Jesus.
You said, “But, it is true that the language is a lot harsher towards the non progressives and in an unfair way. Of course, the progressives have home field advantage here.”
I would argue that in light of the numbers being discussed and the consequences of what the numbers represent, the language is not harsh enough. We all need a wake up call. I’m glad you’re angry…if your anger drives you the make positive changes toward retaining disciples. Much worse would be for you to be complacent with the status quo.
…stepping off my soap box.
Hank,
To answer your question: “But what do you think, Orion? If the children of conservatives who leave are being “driven away from Jesus” and always “hated attending church”, why then are the children of the progressives leaving too? Since they don’t hate attending church and are not being driven away from Jesus in their grace filled Jesus centered environments not existing in the conservative churches?”
When I get through the sarcasm and emotion the question I see is (lord I hate the labels): The “conservatives” and “progressives” see things differently and yet both groups are losing their children. What is the difference?
As others in the comments have tried to convey, the numbers are showing that the ones leaving the more “conservative” churches are leaving Jesus completely while those leaving the more “progressive” churches are going to another church.
My thought is that the divide has less to do with conservative/progressive and more to do with the congregation (parents) being committed to the mission of Jesus. The best way I can define that mission is in Matthew 25, James 1:27, and much of I John. We are to love each other. If we are sold out in ministering to the hungry, thirsty, sick, prisoners, etc. as a individuals and as a group then our kids and others see us being like Jesus and are attracted. When they see us giving up our time, our energy, our preferences…yea, ourselves in love to each other and the world they see Jesus and will want to be a part of that kind of church. In short, if our kids see us wholly committed to Jesus and his mission they will want to be a part of that. As long as we remain lukewarm Jesus is not the only one that spews us out.
Is it not ironic that the very things that Flavil states as reasons why they left are the very things he and howard Norton defend?
Alan wrote,
Amen!
Dwayne,
1. Yeakley does not consider staff salaries or, as I recall, church size.
2. I grew up in North Alabama. I’ve spent my entire life in Churches of Christ. I’ve seen the reality on the ground. The conservative Churches of Christ drove away their own children — many of them being dear friends of mine. And, yes, many grew up hating attending church. I make no apology for an accurate observation. Nor would I be doing them a favor by sugar-coating their sins.
When I left Lipscomb to attend a state university law school, I was astonished at the number of former CoC members I met who’d left any active involvement in church of any kind. The hurt and pain was palpable. And many reacted with anger. (Today there are very active internet boards dedicating to counseling people leaving Churches of Christ — and some leave with deep emotional scars.)
So, yes, harsh verbs for the conservative brethren. I’ve lived in their world. I’ve seen the fruit. I was once one of them. And now I mourn the children they are driving away from Jesus.
A works-based religion, and strong emphasis on fear, coupled with a distrust of grace, is a highly toxic combination. Spend some time reviewing the works and fruit of the “Contending for the Faith” crowd and the East Tennessee School of Preaching. If anything, I think I’ve understated the problem.
I know this is all rather emotional, but I’d be far more concerned if we didn’t get emotional about the eternal fates of our own children. Indeed, I worry that some of us manage to intellectualize and compartmentalize the discussion as though we’re discussing bacteria in a Petri dish. We ought to be angry at what’s happening to the children of our brothers and sisters.
Doug asked,
I don’t think so. It’s an intriguing question. However, my guess would have been that more young men leave than young women — in part due to my own observation, in part because our churches have more women then men, and in part because the women are more likely to follow the example of their mothers — and moms are often much more prone to volunteer in church than dads – in my observation.
So it’s an interesting question …
Hank asked,
Very. See my comment at: /2012/04/churches-of-christ-why-they-left-chapter-2/#comment-365611
We’re talking about the souls of children.
PS — I would be delighted to invite you to visit my church, attend my class, and hear our preaching. We preach Bible. We are intensely focused on Jesus and his scriptures. And I’d put up my level of doctrinal emphasis against any conservative author you please.
It’s unfair to characterize me and those of similar thought as “very weak on doctrinal emphasis,” as this site plainly demonstrates. Rather, we just disagree about some of the conclusions we draw — but our difference is not that I’m un-serious about the scriptures.
GT wrote,
I pray for the end of legalism and works religion. But not at the cost of the souls of so many children. I cannot celebrate driving young people from Jesus. Therefore, my prayer is not that these churches run their children away but that they repent.
We can’t know exactly what kind of Church self-identifies as “moderate,” but based on nearly 58 years in the Churches, my take is that these Churches would be the Gospel Advocate kind of Churches, not the Contending for the Faith kind — if that helps. Thus, they aren’t going to hold seminars declaring K. C. Moser apostate, but they’ll treat not only Baptists but instrumental Churches of Christ damned. It’s still legalism.
The damage done by moderate Churches — who preach a kinder, gentler legalism — is not as severe as among the most conservative. Praise God fewer of their children abandon Jesus altogether! But legalism is still legalism and will still drive many away.
I’ve made some very detailed proposals here for improving youth and campus ministry, especially in terms of the Orange concept and multigenerational ministry. More importantly, we need to take seriously the series of lessons I taught at Tulsa on learning to truly live like Jesus. It’s trite but true: Jesus is the answer. Law is not. Of course, that’s not new idea. It’s written all over the New Testament.
The challenge facing the Progressives, as I said, is to become better at evangelism. We Progressives have grown Churches by attracting disaffected members from more conservative Churches of Christ in town. We’ve deluded ourselves into thinking that this “growth” proves that we’re on the right path — but at most it demonstrates that we’re a little more attractive than the conservative Churches. But, as I said, that pond’s about fished out. It’s time to get serious about evangelism.
The emphasis needs to shift from grace (we’re not legalists!) to mission (we’re saved to serve in the Kingdom — motivated by God’s grace). Rather than congratulating ourselves on escaping law-based salvation, we should roll up our sleeves and get busy about our Father’s business.
Hank wrote,
I agree. While I believe the conservative approach to baptism is in error, that’s not the part of the conservative agenda I consider legalistic. Although I do think that once one truly understands grace — deep in his bones — when it becomes a part of how you think, not just a doctrine learned — when it’s fully internalized, the baptism issue goes away.
Actually, it’s mainly Baptists who say the sinner’s prayer, and they’re all immersed. You know, Stone, both Campbells, Fanning, and even David Lipscomb considered Baptist baptism entirely sufficient. But I guess they weren’t serious about the Bible either.
As for keeping the children: The most conservative groups among the Anabaptists keep around 90% of their children (and they have 7-8 kids in average). Thus the Amish and Hutterites for instance double every 30 years, although (or because?) their life style is WAY different than the one of society around them. Flipside: They don’t grow (or hardly) through evangelism, hence no new family-names are added to the Yoders and Stotzfuss and Waldners …
Anyway: It’s interesting to investigate HOW they keep their kids.
Alexander
Any idea why the progressives loose even slightly more kids than the most copnservative churches (not to the world, but anyway the are not staying in their “hom church”)?
The Anabaptist BTW could be viewed as “work-based” and legalistic” as well – from an Evangelical view-point – but they keep their kids. Therefore I think there is another ingredient that is important: This is a deep conviction of separtion from the world. This is often missing even among conservative churches of Christ. Little sheep need to learn about the “big bad wolf” and to understand that the world is the “devil’s playground”. As you said above:
This is very true; but separation from the world goes further and includes our views on violence (non-resistance), politics and goes even to the way we dress (modestly). It’s a counter culture. Yet, we try to maintain a secular culture while speaking of not being of this world; while we can draw too many lines – we most often draw no lines at all. Anything goes. Drawing lines sounds probably too work-based and legalistic …
Alexander
Jay,
We may not be able to dispute that Baptists are immersed, but let’s not kid ourselves…we know they weren’t immersed for the right reason. Don’t you know you have to get it all perfectly right for any of it to count?
There’s sarcasm there that can’t be adequately conveyed in print.
I suppose you’d have to count me as one of “those who left.” If anyone wants my two cent’s worth, they’re welcome to ask me. Not that a 32-year-old Divinity school dropout has anything really worthwhile to say.
Hank,
What I think you do not understand is that many of those who are against multi-communion cups, church cooporation and orphan homes, and such, consider these as salvation issues just as much as they do baptism. As far as those who feel this way are concerned your baptism, mine or Jay’s, was a total waste of water. I have known non-cooporation preachers who called the Gospel Advocate a “Liberal Rag”.
My point is this: From where you stand you look “right” and see those whom I have mentioned and see them as Christians who have made laws where there are no laws; then you look “left” and see those who are “doctrinally weak”. You are convinced that what you see in both directions is true. And so are they; just as convinced as you. The one-cuppers look “right” and “left” and see what you think you see. So do the non-cooporation churches. I know of very small towns in the south that have two, even three, non-coporation congregations, each one thinking, “Well, those over there are making laws where there are no laws; and those over there are so liberal that they are just like the denominations”. Everything they divide over, they know, is a salvation issue. You are in that long line of rank liberals with the rest of us.
I was a part of that generation that took off in the mid-80’s. When I consider all of my peers and their involvement or non-involvement spread out over several congregations and a couple of hundred kids I see the following patterns:
1. The biggest factor in keeping kids faithful is active parents. If you think about this it is easy to see how this factor is more important than the “progressive-Conservative” issue. As Alexander states there are some very conservative groups that are growing by keeping their kids because the religious life they lead is one of total committment. This factor explains conservative kids who stay and it also explains progressive kids who go to other groups to serve. Because this mattered to their parents it matters to them and they will go where they feel they need to to be busy for Jesus.
2. Because of the reigning paradigm among progressives there are simply more opportunities for parents to be involved in different ways in the church and the community, thus more opportunity to show how this matters to mom and dad. So a family in a conservative group may be just as committed as a progressive family but because of the congregational focus may not have the same opportunity to display it.
3. The CoC as a whole differs from the Ana-baptist groups that are otherwise so similar to us in that we have never really allowed our search for pure doctrine to lead us to a unique lifestyle. We have a more or less unique way of doing “Church” but once we return to our neighborhoods there aren’t many things that make us stand out from our neighbors. Personally I struggled on this point in my teens, I knew my peers were going to hell because they worshiped wrong but I sure couldn’t see it in their lives. In fact their spiritual habits were better than what I was being taught – though I was assured that those habits would just make me like them if I adopted them so I was sure not to do so.
These factors influenced many of my friends to either drop out totally or find a home elsewhere – usually in a community church.
A few observations:
Churches who think they know who is lost and who is saved have at least a shot at effective evangelism. Those who have no idea have no shot.
Evangelism starts at home, with your children.
Half-converted parents won’t convert their children.
The Christian life starts with the inner life. Do I love God? Do I love what God loves? Do I hate what God hates? (Do I even know what God loves and what God hates?) Do I strive for holiness? Do I submit to God? Do I love the scriptures? Do I listen to the scriptures? Do I pray real, meaningful, heartfelt prayers? Am I grateful for what God has done for me? That’s the “Inner Game of Discipleship”
If parents are serious about those things, their kids know it. And if they’re half-hearted about those things, their kids know that too. That is pretty much the only thing parents can do to affect which way kids go when they become adults.
Good observations, Alan.
I still say the main problem is in seeing “church” as a place we dress up for and drive to in order to be Athens the church for the whole 3 hours until it ends. Then, when church is over, we go home and carry on as usual until the next time we have to ERR… get to go to church again.
I think more and more people are feeling this way, that the whole “church” experience is kind of showy and not really like it seems like it was in the Bible, and our children know it too
Somehow, someway, I believe we all need to be a part of “congregations” without designated buildings, paid staffs doing all of the work, and where we all really get to know and love and help and correct each other because we really know and love each other.
Unlike the current scene where people act and look and put on their best in front if virtual strangers in order to feel holy for an hour.
“At the” in line 2. Not “Athens”, lol
Alan wrote: “Churches who think they know who is lost and who is saved have at least a shot at effective evangelism. Those who have no idea have no shot.”
>>>
This is true, and also not true. The CoC as a denomination has a clear history of preaching on just who is saved and just who is lost, but they are clearly ineffective in evangelism. (Just compare population growth to church growth.) Being MORE critical– that is, being more willing to identify unsaved even those who claim faith in Jesus– has not shown to correlate with evangelism. In fact, it seems to be the opposite. We are not only NOT welcoming strangers into the body of Christ, we are rejecting believers at the door for not having their papers in order. We are doing exactly what Jesus accused the Pharisees of in Matthew 23:13.
I will agree that those who have only a vague picture of what it is to be “in Christ” will have a very hard time bringing anyone to faith. It is when we are clear about who is saved and who is not, AND when that line is drawn at faith in Jesus, rather than at some composite set of obediences and forebearances, that we have an opportunity for effective evangelism.
Hypocrisy is neither attractive nor convincing. The guy who lives in a 5000 square foot mansion won’t get a hearing from me about conserving energy and “reducing my carbon footprint”. The “family values” candidate who tells lies about his opponent does not get my vote. And the parent who declares that belonging to Jesus is the most important thing in the world, but for whom Jesus does not make his life appreciably different than that of his neighbors, is unlikely to pass his own religious preferences on to his children. They are acutely aware of the gap between talk and walk.
This disconnect does not mean that the parent is some kind of closet heathen. What it means is that the intensity of belief the child hears at church does not reverberate
in his own home. This may be a good thing, in some cases. A long-time elder told me, “We often live better than our doctrine.” In other words, some of the divisiveness and condemnation Junior hears in the pulpit, he may not hear from Dad at home. This is good, but left undiscussed, it causes Junior to ask, “If Dad doesn’t take this CoC stuff seriously, why should I?”
Todd
“allowed our search for pure doctrine to lead us to a unique lifestyle.” That nails for me! I think above all else debated our lifestyle is the down fall. The church of Christ
does not have a unified culture. We have a professional culture- we have a hometown culture- we have city culture- we alot of culture but none of it pulls together as a unified idea. Thus our kids are overwhelmed and seek their own culture one without the church and just with Jesus instead.
idea.
Aaron,
I’d like to hear your $.02 cents worth. Where are you now spiritually? Do you have a christian fellowship and if so what kind of a fellowship is it?. Have you recovered from what I read as a some sort of a large spirtual disappointment? Do you still have hurts that need healing and have you forgiven those who hurt you? And, anything else you’d like to add…
I wonder sometimes if there is more of a desire to have children than to raise children. What I’m trying to say is it’s no wonder kids don’t relate to what their parents believe if they are dropped off at school then left in front of a tv or computer. Then dropped off at children’s church or youth group at church. Not saying programs for children or youth are bad by the way. But on top of the doctrinal problems I think it’s become to easy to have kids without doing anything other than paying others to look after and entertain them. I taught a Bible Study for teens for a few years and it never failed. The kids whose parents were involved in their lives and in their spiritual development were great and easy to teach. On the other hand most of the kids who were used to being dropped off so to speak were board unless you were willing to entertain them. Not only that when I asked most felt they were far smarter than their parents until I brought up what their parents were doing while they were going to school and entertaining themselves. Things like working and paying for their house and food and the million other things they do. The problem was their parents didn’t have a clue that their kids felt the way they did. They didn’t spend any time with them.
Doug,
Thanks for asking. It’s interesting to try to “locate” myself spiritually. I have good days and bad days, but I’d like to think I’m much better off than I have been in days past. I do have a Christian fellowship, and it extends across several church groups here in the Nashville area. Primarily, I worship with an Anglican/Episcopal church, and have been greatly blessed by the body of Christ there.
Regarding my spiritual disappointment (very perceptive of you to pick up on that, by the way), I would have to say that I’m still in the process of recovering. Without going into detail, my family was betrayed by our “shepherds,” and that betrayal has tainted most, if not all, of my interactions with church bodies since then. This event happened in the late 90’s, so we’re talking about more than a decade at this point. At times I have felt like I’ve dealt with the hurts, and forgiven the men (and their families) that were complicit in what happened, but if I discuss them in any particular way, it’s easy to revert to a very hostile, angry position. I suppose this is a major factor in my hostility toward the some commenters here. In my experience, the “conservative” Church of Christ is a domineering and abusive body. I know that is not accurate of all Churches, or indeed all members of all Churches, but when people espouse the “sound doctrines” that were taught to me in my teenage years, I can’t help but remember the men who taught them to me, how much I admired them at the time, and how despicably they treated my family when we needed love, grace, and support the most. Instead, we were ostracized and judged from afar, even though all the accusations leveled against us were false. It’s very similar to the way some commenters here pronounce judgements on those of us who are more progressive/liberal/whatever, without any attempt at dialouge…it just sets me off.
Anyways, that’s a bit more than I usually like to reveal in public. So, if you’d like to converse further, I’m sure Jay can pass along my email address to you.
Aaron,
It sound like we have quite a bit in common even though I have spent most of life in the Independent Christian Church. While that part of the restoration movement is generally less condemning than the Church of Christ, I ultimately was still deeply hurt there, primarily by the action of several ministers, and left clinging to Jesus by the tips of my spiritual fingers. I too found refuge in an Episcopal church where I planned to simply show up late and leave early. It took a lot of time but I did find healing there and was pretty happy there until the ordination of active homosexuals occurred. I am not a homphobe but I couldn’t reconcile that with the scriptures. I had other issues with the Episcopal church as well but it was a temporary place to heal. I went to Cursillo there and that was a BIG turning point for me.
Some time later , I moved and decided to once again to try to go back to a restoration movement church. The only restoration church available was a Church of Christ and I determined it was a somewhat progressive Church of Christ. I thought it to be somewhat akin to the Epsicopal church, a place that while I didn’t accept everything they called doctrine, was still a place to worship and to engage in ministry. It is not a perfect fit but I try to fit in as best I can.
If you’d like to contact me directly, please contact Jay and ask him to provide my email address to you. Jay, you have my permission to give Aaron my email address.
Blessings to you…
Charles McLean wrote:
In the 1950’s, the churches of Christ were the fastest growing religious group in America. Of course, today they are far from that. What changed?
I agree there is not correlation between clear-cut understanding of who is saved, and effective evangelism. Having a clear concept of who is lost and who is saved is necessary, but not sufficient, to effective evangelism. Post-moderns say we can’t have a clear understanding of that. So, in effect they are saying we can’t be effective at evangelism — effectively, that there’s no point in trying. Is that message coming from God, or from Satan? I think I know the answer to that.
Pingback: this went thru my mind |
Pingback: The 2015 Churches of Christ in the United States | One In Jesus