Thom Rainer posted an article last week called “When Great Churches Fail.” It was an intriguing examination of once great churches that had lost their grip an begun to struggle and dwindle. He identified three key elements that seem to be common elements in these declines.
Hubris. The word means pride or excessive self-confidence. Here it refers to church leaders who have seen great days at their churches, and who are convinced that their churches are the models for others to emulate. They talk about the methods they used, instead of the biblical principles and passions behind the methods. Since theirs was such an effective church in the past, the leaders see little need to do things differently today.
Denial. It’s a characteristic of church leaders of fallen churches. They simply don’t want to face the facts. The church is not as evangelistic as it once was. People are not growing in the Word as in the past. Expectations are lower, and so is morale.
Nostalgia. Most churches have a period in their history that stands out above others. But some churches still live in that period though it’s long past. Nostalgia is fine if it is simply the act of fond memories. Nostalgia is sinful if it keeps the church from moving forward in Great Commission obedience.
In Iowa, our definitions are different. A Southern Baptist church in Iowa that runs more than 200 on Sunday is a megachurch by our standards. If a church goes over 100, the Hallelujah Chorus rings out across the state. We are a small group. But we have seen plenty of churches that once were great (by Iowa standards) and have since either folded completely or are paddling hard just to keep their heads above water. And these three items – hubris, denial and nostalgia – are often evident. We become enamored of our own supposed greatness, we deny the existence of problems and we focus on the past instead of facing the future.
I wonder if some of these same problems are markers of the current life of the SBC.
Hubris: I love the SBC, but can there be doubt that at time we have been self-important and arrogant at times? I have been in strategy meetings where we talk about “unentered counties” which have no Baptist church as if there is no gospel presence there. In Iowa, there are some counties with some great Evangelical Free, or Baptist churches of other stripes, or independent Bible churches that have a strong g0spel presence.
We are not the only boat fishing in the lake and we may not even be the best. We must realize that while God has done much through us as a convention, we may not have quite the place in the Kingdom that we have imagined.
Denial: I heard this one often in the early days of the reform movement in the SBC. There’s nothing wrong here. We are a good convention an all is well. Then, the numbers started to turn.
A cancer patient often feels healthy long after the disease starts to spread through the body. Often, symptoms are ignored or misunderstood until it is too late. The SBC may be exhibiting some signs of spiritual disease even though we are still vibrant in many ways. We are so splintered and divided it is hard for me to see a future of missions partnership. As the needs in the world grow greater, individual Baptists are keeping more and more of their money for themselves and investing less and less in the Kingdom. And churches are investing less and less into missions efforts. An inward focus is one of the first signs of a dying church – if its about us its not about Christ, is it?
The SBC is not dead, but I think there are some real problems we would do well not to ignore.
Nostalgia: Oh, those good old days. I remember hearing one man talk about his athletic career. “The older I get, the better I used to be!” I think the future of the SBC is threatened by the obsessive nostalgia of many in the SBC.
To hear some people talk, all we have to do to solve our problems is to go backwards to the good old days and to do things the way we used to do them in the 50s and 60s – the SBC’s days of glory. I’m all for looking back at the early church and trying, as best we can, to replicate the way things were done in that church, but I think that our obsessive looking back 50 years is an unhealthy nostalgia.
The world has changed. Attitudes and morals have changed. Our culture is very different than it was in my childhood days. If we insist on looking back, we will not go forward. God is infinitely creative and is not dependent on the same old strategies and programs. Every program the SBC had in those good old days that worked was once someone’s innovative idea. Who is to say that those old ways from the old days were the last creative innovations God would ever have?
We preach a very old message – and that should never change. Our doctrine should not change with the changing times. But our methods, our strategies and our approaches to engage this culture with the eternal gospel must be ever-open to change.
You can’t walk forward with your head always looking behind.
There is a rack of ribs at Texas Roadhouse that is calling to me. So, you can share your thoughts on this as you will. But I think that there is a real danger that the SBC could follow the course of once-great churches that have lost ground and become a once-great denomination.
What say you?
I’m not really a radical, but I think that the future of the SBC is, these days, in great doubt!
Skip the ribs, load up on free peanuts and take a steak home for lunch tomorrow.
No. Order lemon baked fish, with salad,
and take a tenderloin steak home for lunch tomorrow . . .
(and get fat-free dressing without sugar on it)
Eat WELL . . . and get well.
Ribs…ribs…ribs
no . . . no . . . no . . . NO!
Love me some baby back ribs.
At the Roadhouse, it’s steak all the way. Too many places better with the ribs than they are around here.
The SBC Churches have led many people to Our Lord.
As long as the SBC Churches preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified, as long as they point towards the Person of
Jesus Christ Risen From The Dead;
then the SBC Churches ARE participants in the sacred work of the Great Commission which began 2000 years ago and will continue until Our Lord returns to us.
Worried about diminishing ‘greatness’ ? Don’t.
The only greatness the Church could ever claim is found undiminished in the One who sends His people forth to serve.
We can look at many things that can be affecting the “growth” and “health” of our churches. I think we miss a major point when we see decline and begin to evaluate “what went wrong”. Maybe two things are happening. First, too much of our success may depend on what we want to establish as a program that brings in a few souls. Jesus said, “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18. Our examination should be the evaluation of our own hands. More often than not, success is of God alone since Jesus said, “I will build My church”. Not what we came up with but what God was going to do at that time. We seem to see our idea as the thing that brought results and we compliment God for doing it which doesn’t make sense. Second, maybe what we preach about the end times is setting itself up. “But as the days of Noah [were], so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” Matthew 24:37. If this is pre-rapture, then, we have a sign of the end times. Not many come into the ark. Seems like the church is experiencing a similar effect. This is just an observance I have seen over the years. I think we should continue to do the same thing knowing the success is not of us, but God.
Good thoughts, Bruce. You always bring a good perspective.
SBC “WENT” wrong when for so long it was so focused on numbers. Even today, through various sources, I hear the IMB puts pressure on its missionaries to produce numbers (aka converts) as a gauge on how successful they are, and whether or not their position in that area should be continued. Here in the states, if a churches baptism numbers drop off, old time SBC folk are told to think “What is wrong?”
Let me tell you all something that I hope most of you know. God does NOT care about quantity, rather he cares about QUALITY. If a church plant in its first year only has 10 baptisms in a large city, but yet all those 10 folks are STILL involved in the church then that is a GREAT thing. If another church plant baptizes 100 people, but only 10 are still active (in that church or even other churches), then THAT is a sign of something wrong.
My opinion is that if the SBC started teaching and training its ministers and its laypersons, that creating a true disciple is better than getting a quick convert number, then the SBC can survive. If not…It wont. Jesus tells us quite clearly that not everyone who says “Lord Lord” will be in heaven. That is to say, not everyone who is baptized in a SBC church is going to be saved. I would wager to bet that the majority of folks who get baptized but then after a year or two stop attending church, never were saved to begin with. Yet that church sure will use their baptism to boost their numbers! And by golly that is the SBC way!
I have some ambivalence about numbers, I guess. I agree with you that we have created numerical markers of success and have often cut corners and replaced with work of the Spirit with human manipulation to achieve those numbers.
On the other hand, I believe that a numerical decline such as we are seeing ought to be an indicator that there is something wrong – or at least that we should search our souls to see if there is anything in them to hinder God’s power or quench God’s Spirit.
Whatever it was that added numbers back in the “glory day” built a collection of churches that’s hard-pressed to find half its members on a good Sunday. In light of what the Great Commission actually is, maybe we didn’t know what the word “glory” … in this context … even meant.
Brother Dave,
I want to be careful here because I agree with most of what you have said. I certainly do not want to diminish my agreement by pointing you to two areas. I believe you negate the areas of my agreement when you use these two areas because they are just not accurate.
First, you point out something that I have never heard anyone say, or even imply in writing that we do.
Please, show me where this has been either implied or written this would be the way back to health for the SBC.
Second, you use the same term that we all have heard thousands of times.
Certainly we all agree that our methods and strategies are not going to remain the same. For example, the tune for the song “At Calvary” was once a saloon song. Can you imagine the worship war that tune brought to the church. Probably much of the same war we experienced when Music Ministers introduced singing “Amazing Grace” to the tune of “House in New Orleans”. 🙂 But, my objection concerns this statement in conjunction to a statement you made in the paragraph before. You said; “Attitudes and morals have changed.” If our changing methods reflect our changed morals then our methods are moving us from the Word of God, which never changes.
Well, those are my disagreements. The list is too long on my agreements, but with this rarity, I will just let it go. 🙂
Blessings,
Tim
Sorry, that should be “House of the Rising Sun” instead of “House of New Orleans”. I was going by memory of the song lyrics instead of the actual title.
Tim
This song is dedicated to Tim Rogers, a convictional Baptist, Airborne Ranger who fell out of a plane without a ‘chut and lived, Husband of Gail, and my Pal.
There Is a Shrimp Boat in New Orleans,
They Call the Rising Sun.
And It’s Been the Ruin of Many a Poor Boy,
And Tim Rogers knows, he’s one.
His Mother Was a Tailor,
Sewed His New Blue Jeans.
His Father Was a Shrimpin’ Man.
Down in New Orleans.
Now the Only Thing a Shrimper Needs Is
A catch of a good weight.
And the Only Time He’s Satisfied
Is When He used Tim for Bait.
Oh Mother, Tell Your Children,
Not to Do What Tim Has Done.
Spend Your Lives as Shrimpin’ Bait
On A Boat Called the Rising Sun.
Well Tim’s Got One Foot On the Deck,
And the Other On the Rail. They’re Throwin’
Tim Back In the Gulf Today Wearin’ That Ball and Chain…..
Amazing Grace can also be sung to the tune of “Gilligan’s Island”.
Now try getting that out of your head.
As one that is very intensely studying Newton’s life and writings I have to inform you that Newton was a huge fan of all things Gilligan.
He was also a big fan of figs.
cb scott – Was that Fig Newton ?
cb scott – pea soup was also brought over but I never cared much for it.
The whole traditionalist movement has decried the fact that we have changed our structures from that which was going on 50 years ago. Some, see the CR as the point of departure. Others see the more cultural change that took place in the 90s and thereafter (modern music, less focus on institution, etc). And of course, you heard that everywhere during the GCR.
And, in your second point, you either willfully or through the lack of reading what I wrote, misstate my point. I stated in the article that our timeless message doesn’t change.
Here is what I said: “We preach a very old message – and that should never change. Our doctrine should not change with the changing times. But our methods, our strategies and our approaches to engage this culture with the eternal gospel must be ever-open to change.”
I don’t think anyone could reasonably infer from what I wrote that I was advocating shifting our moral stands.
Tim,
Dave is right. He was not advocating a moral shift.
You might have been a little “shrimpy” on that one. 🙂
Brother Dave,
Don’t talk past me, I am not trying to be disagreeable. I am not saying that you believe our message must change. I am saying your statement is that our “morals” have changed. This is where my disagreement lies. I am not one that believes our morals have changed. Help me understand what morals have changed that we have today?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I dedicated you a beautiful song. I think you should sing it in church next Sunday morning. I think that if you will, your flock will become more enlightened as to your journey in life and from where your moorings evolve. Or at least they will know where your shrimp boat is anchored.
He’s talking about cultural morals, not Christian morals.
It depends on who “our” refers to in the phrase “our morals”. Does it refer only to genuine Christians? Does it include moral church members who are not necessarily Christian? Does it include the idea that we are philosophically influenced by our culture?
Part of the problem of the previous generation has been a touch of Judeo-Christian moralism in the culture. People came to church because it was the moral thing to do rather than because they honestly trusted Christ. So when it became “moral” to not go to church many stopped coming. They really weren’t spiritually invested in the gospel of Christ, saved or not, and didn’t pass on to their children what they didn’t have.
My mother and father-in-law are good moralists. They know that you can go to church and not be a Christian, but they act like the people who won’t come to church are their enemies. They don’t have any concept of spreading the gospel to them. What they admonish people to do outside of church is behave correctly. My brother-in-law, their son, claims that he can be like John Walton of TV fame and not go to church, but it’s a cop-out. He’s no Christian. He grew up being dragged to church and told to behave. That was the gospel he was raised on. The result is what we have today in his life and the culture at large.
At this, I suggest that “getting people to come to church” isn’t the right goal. “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness and these things will be added to you.” The Kingdom of God is the message of the Gospel being taken to the four corners of the world as far as we are to be concerned at this time. Our righteousness is nothing except where we can tell of His righteousness. If more people come to church as a result, then wonderful. If the Church moves out because it is mobile and growing, then rejoice.
Tim, it seems to me to be somewhat irrefutably manifest that the moral standards in America have changed. When I was young, homosexuality was viewed as sinful and perverted, even in non-Christian circles. Living together before marriage was frowned upon in our culture. None of that is true now. We live in a post-Christian culture with moral standards antithetical to the scriptures and vastly different than the ones that were predominant in my younger days. The world has changed a lot. The morals of the people all around us have changed a lot. The culture we live in no longer shares any of our moral values, but in fact rejects them and finds them shameful.
I’m not sure why you would challenge that assertion, Tim.
Dave,
So you are speaking of Cultural morals as a whole instead of Christian morals within the confines of the SBC? If you will look at your statement it defines your statement concerning “Nostalgia”. I figured you were speaking of the Christian morals we believe the Bible teaches within the setting we call the SBC.
Look, I told you in my first comment I was not trying to be disagreeable. So, I will bow out before CB write a song about me to the tune of “Mustang Sally”.
Blessings,
Tim
I don’t see how anyone with basic literacy skills could have misread Dave’s comment about the decline of morals in the wider culture.
Tim, you may want to check your historical references regarding Daniel Towner, the hymn tune composer for “At Calvary.”
I’ve heard that story told about “A Mighty Fortress” (that it was a bar tune that Luther co-opted), but now it seems more commonly held that Luther wrote both the words and the tune of that hymn. And, from what little (and online) research I did, you are right about Daniel Towner, who composed the tune to At Calvary.
Dave, the misunderstanding about “A Mighty Fortress” being a bar tune that Martin Luther co-opted for his church services seems to be a misreading of some historical documents. Many times he did incorporate many tunes “from the Mass” (i.e. from the Roman Catholic worship services) into his church’s worship. But this has been misattributed to tunes “from the masses” (i.e. popular tunes of his day), which I don’t believe he did. I believe “A Mighty Fortress,” the only tune most modern-day Christians associate with Luther (even though he wrote dozens, if not hundreds), was authentically Luther’s, and he got it from nowhere else. People who want to make their point of using pop tunes in worship need to find some other historical documentation.
I have long since felt that the tune “At Calvary” sounded like a bar tune and would sound well on a honky-tonk piano, but to attribute the tune to such when it was written by Dwight Moody’s song leader, would be a mistake.
Brother Kevin,
I have no problem conceding the point concerning the bar tune. Your knowledge of the musical history would probably be more than mine. My knowledge comes from my notes taken in my music class at SEBTS pre-PP.
Blessings,
Tim
I am not sure why the site is not allowing comments on my latest post. Maybe its demons??
Maybe. I long ago stopped getting notifications when someone replies to a comment I leave. So maybe there’s bugs in the system.
Well, I’m not a believer, much less SBC any more, but I did want to chime in if I may. I think this is a good article, and nicely written, though I do not entirely agree (and unavoidably so, simply because I belong to a different order of things). I think your criticisms are pretty much spot on. I just think that holding to the orthodox doctrine that the SBC claims will result in a shrinking membership as a matter of course, simply due to changing cultural values, both social and religious. I do not agree with Christian doctrine at all, and by saying that, I am not trying to be argumentative, because I do want to be respectful to SBC members. But my point is simply that there is a HUGE divide between what is considered orthodox in the SBC and religious operation of most people in society, at least it seems to me, and I live in a pretty religious area (with a lot of SBC churches, but also a lot of Pentecostal as well). It will be interesting to observe any innovative approaches evangelists in the SBC create to embrace orthodox teachings and still attempt to reach the unconverted. Back when I was a Christian and a Calvinist, I had an impression that I want to share and ask if anyone here agrees (and I am sure many believe I was never saved to begin with, and I will not argue with that religious belief, though I do understand it and disagree, but for the sake of conversation I am phrasing it that way because I do not want to write, “Before I became an apostate…” which might be technically more accurate). Anyways, my impression was that perhaps God was cleansing the church and mostly weeding out the chaff and pretty much leaving mostly wheat, the elect. That coupled with this would come a time of intense scrutiny and criticism for the churches, if not becoming persecution outright in this country of the level we currently observe happening to Christians overseas. And that only the very serious disciples of the faith would remain.
My question is, how accurate and/or shared is this impression with you all and your beliefs, if you do not mind me asking?
Byroniac, i don’t find that our post-Christian society presents us with any real threat or persecution. Being mocked because one is not a party-animal is about the extent of what I’ve experienced. I don’t see the phenomenon you speak of happening any time soon. I just think people who are uninterested are more inclined to leave church these days because of a cultural shift. Churches that don’t ask anything of their members in the way of belief are simply offering what society already thinks. One can go to university and hear a lecture, and you can at least pick up some credits there. No need for a Sunday morning service. So these chruches will be unable to keep them on board. The churches which call for orthodox belief among members attract all those who want something more. This is the phenomenon I notice. While your line of thought probably represents the SBC argument about endtimes, I would not venture to make any predicitons this early on. But I wonder if I may ask what drew you away from Christianity.
Well, my loss of faith is off-topic so I won’t comment on it here, but some of it is available on my blog, and I plan to write more about it soon.
I guess what was really in the back of my mind is this: there are many doctrines that are really attacked now, such as the church stance on homosexuality, and the Genesis story of origins (and pretty much anything in the first 11 chapters at least) so Creation versus Evolution, and exclusivity of salvation. Some of these are contrary to the dominant scientific view, others (such as the exclusivity of salvation in Jesus Christ as Lord) are “distasteful” doctrines to many. I do not really believe the SBC will die any time soon, but I believe it will continue shrinking, perhaps a lot, due to our different, post-Christian culture (in some ways), and attrition by loss of faith by various people.
The problem I am having, personally, as that I do not believe I have been sufficiently objective before as a religious believer or even now, as an apostate. I want to be objective, but it’s very difficult to overcome biases, especially learned ones which you find to be comfortable. I suppose my impression fits more of an end-times scenario than it does contemporary circumstances, according to what you just said. And if I had to boil my interest in this down to (mostly) a single idea, it would be this: the survival and propagation of the faith according to Reformed and very conservative viewpoints, in the presence of indifferent and even hostile environments, and keeping the security of the doctrines of the faith. I am not sure why I am interested in this, but perhaps it is because I believed so strongly in it at one time, and because I know there are several here who currently believe at least as strongly as I used to. I am very curious to see the adaptation of Christianity through its struggles and how society reacts in beneficial or harmful ways.
I am sorry for giving the possible impression in my words that religious belief inherently causes one to be less objective than secular non-belief. By writing that, I have revealed another subjective bias, proving my point. I would like to think that I have become more objective than I was previously, though I believe that objectivity led me towards skepticism. However, the religious truths of Christianity cannot be acquired using objective thinking as best as I can tell, because its beliefs come from the Bible as a text believed to be divinely inspired and therefore a product of revelation and not reason, in order to provide truth. I think this is accurate? At any rate, let me rephrase what I wrote: I feel like I have lacked sufficient objectivity, and I am trying to learn to become more objective and subdue and overcome my biases, though I am studying Christianity now from an outsider’s perspective.
No, God is not come by through reasoning. Not really. It is a matter of revelation as I see it. Of faith, really. Belief in the character of the God who gave it. And something supernatural occurred, too. But what is objectivity? We all see the world personally. Hopefully we come to see it accurately. If you can achieve broadness of vision then you can see something beyond yourself, but still inclusive of yourself and somewhat peculiar to who you are indivdiually.
I’m very familiar with Calvinism and I don’t find it very interesting. Apparently there are many who do, and I’m having a difficult time trying to demonstrate the absurdity of that system.
I’m not sure what you mean by “interesting” sal. If that were true in the sense I understand it, you would not even be talking about it, much less “trying to demonstrate the absurdity of that system” to others. Not to chase a race horse galloping away from the topic at hand, but believe me I can see where you are coming from when you call that system absurd. The thing is, if I ever returned to faith, I would go back to Calvinism and nothing else. I am not sure why, but perhaps it is because my belief is that it is more Scriptural than the other systems. Whatever the case, I have to remind myself that Calvinism and Christianity are not synonymous, though they very nearly were for myself and most people I interacted with on a daily basis from a practical perspective.
I forgot to add that instead of “interesting” perhaps you meant you do not find it “persuasive” as you do seem to find it interesting in the sense you appear to have devoted a lot of time to it, is all (so have I, and I continue to occasionally pursue study of it).
Brother Byronaic,
Not trying to ride that galloping horse, but do you not see the absurdity of expressing that you have lost your faith but were adamant for a system that says you cannot loose salvation, and now saying if you return you will return to that same system?
Salvation is not a system it is a Person and his name is Jesus. Praying for your true salvation.
Blessings,
Tim
I agree with Tim.
Hello, Tim Rogers. I can understand how it is absurd from a particular perspective: how can one believe salvation cannot be lost and then lose faith and still believe that the idea of being unable to lose salvation is valid? But, as I understood Calvinism, the Perseverance of the Saints did not preclude a temporary, even long term, loss of faith, because once regenerated, a permanent loss of faith is impossible. And because election (and regeneration) is impossible to discern infallibly, even in oneself, many possibilities exist to explain a loss of faith: 1) the person was never truly regenerated, and is not elect, 2) the person was never truly regenerated yet, and is elect, and regeneration will take place in the future, 3) true regeneration happened in the believer, and a temporary falling away from the faith has occurred in the person’s heart, such as Peter’s three denials of Christ, or perhaps 4) a severe spiritual and perhaps demonic oppression/confusion is happening in the person’s mind but his soul is still truly saved, and perhaps other possibilities.
I am forced to call salvation a system because I no longer believe in it; I have no choice in the matter if I am to be honest. That this particular system focuses on true belief and faith in a specific Person with specific doctrinal beliefs about that Person, does not negate the fact that its doctrine(s) of salvation still form(s) a theological system which can be defined and expressed verbally. If Christianity is true, and Christ actually exists, then of course it is exactly as you say, a Person and not a mere system of theology. But because I am not a believer, it is simply one theological system among many competitors, none of which I find personally convincing. If anything, I’m biased in favor of Christianity, however. But my reason for saying that I would return to the “system” if I returned to the “faith” is because I still prefer to think it is more Scriptural than the alternative Christian interpretations, and of course, there are Christians and even non-Christians who would disagree with me.
Thanks, Byroniac. Your choice of persuasive is far better. I’m interested in understanding why people are calvinistic. I want to get at why people pursue it. In that sense it interests me. it doesn’t interest me as a way to answer the questions I ask about myself and the world. I think there’s a mindset or a personality that’s drawn to it. I suspect this because of calvinists I’ve come in contact with in the past. I do think it’s persuasive to them, thoguh not to myself. I can see where a certain person might find it persuasive and more biblical and a kind of reformed or restored version of truth. I just think they’re mistaken.
Objective/subjective, two sides, two ideas, apparently contradictory, can’t be reconciled, not meant to be, they are to be held together in the mind as the producer of a tension which enables one to be balanced and flexible. Some times, one needs to be objective, collect data, analyze, etc. At other times, one must be subjective, warm, affirming, supportive, and loving. Having been an atheist, given to the paralysis of analysis, I do appreciate the both/and approach of biblical Christian faith. The happiness and joy even in the midst of rounds with doubts and depression, etc., more than compensates for my loss of my proudful atheism. Churches and people decline and revive like the fields and the crops they produce on farm. One must let a field lie fallow for a while in order for processes to occur which will allow for the soil to be regain its productive capacity. One of the things I learned on a cotton farm back in Arkansas in the 40s and first half of the 50s is that the only way you can get a long row of cotton, that might have grown up with weeds due to rains that kept workers out of the fields, howed is to keep at it, regardless of how you feel or think or long to quit and do something else. The same is true of the Christian way; it is tough, designed to try one to the limits and past such limits to the point of breaking. All of your waves have gone over my head…as one biblical writer put it. Paul summed up the situation well, when he said that he reckoned the present sufferings weren’t worthy to be compared with the glory that shall be revealed.