I spent a week at the Exponential Conference, a church planting conference in Orlando FL. It pushed me and challenged me in ways I had never considered. One of the things I came away with is a quote from Alan Hirsch, he said “the church doesn’t innovate”. The more I think about that, the more i think it’s true.
Think about it, we have only had one part of the service change much, that’s the music and it’s caused huge divisions. We call it the “worship wars” over organs vs guitars. One change and we take sides, arm ourselves and begin the warfare. While the rest of the world speeds to destruction, we still fight over hymns and power point.
We spend time arguing about the building, I don’t know how we have time to invite anyone in the building. We design spaces that we like and we enjoy and then unlock the doors and wait for the people to stream in. Then we act shocked when they don’t.
We still put all of our eggs in one basket, the Sunday morning Worship Service. We haven’t changed, we haven’t innovated. I can see why, you change one part of it and it almost divides the denomination. Makes you stop and wonder what is wrong with us.
Until we figure out that the priority is making disciples, and not growing our Sunday Morning service in our brick and mortar building, we are doomed.
A few weeks ago David Platt talked in a sermon about how in Acts when Paul went and planted a church he made sure there were four things there and then left: the Spirit of God, the Word of God, disciples, and pastors.
Maybe if we get back to seeing those four things as essential and everything else as secondary we won’t have to worry so much about innovating/being stuck, and church will flow more naturally in a building or in a field…
I take some of the points here but maybe we ought to rename this place “SBC Gloom and Doom Voices.” Splintered! Split! Dying! TIC.
I admit to attending more than one conference where the obit for various traditional church stuff was read. All have been premature.
I can’t speak for Dan, but I think the SBC is in trouble, therefore I wrote what I wrote.
The question is not whether we are “doom and gloom” but whether it is accurate. I think that the SBC will continue to fracture if we do not do some things.
Evidently, you are a little more of the all is well mentality. But if I’m right, we need to make some changes and to just keep on doing what we are doing is not good.
William, my primary bent toward most discussion leans toward skepticism, I will readily admit.
But, I have to agree, that I’m beginning to look like and optimist which really ought to cause one to pause and think!
I certainly realize there are problems in many SBC churches, but I really don’t think they are as simple and clear-cut as Dan suggests.
I also wonder why anyone would pay good money to go hear “doom and gloom” when you can tune into TV for free!
I also don’t think Dave is fair to put you in the “all is well mentality.” I don’t think that is what you were confessing to in your post.
Also, there is a path toward revitalization that does not focus on eliminating the negatives, but accentuating the positives. If I’m reading you right, William, I think that is what you are saying.
For example: a few years ago when Sunday School work started lagging some (not a few) promoted scrapping the Sunday School model and promoting the “small group model.” Many succeeded in part A but never made it to part B, and nothing was gained, though much was lost.
I’d like to see a little more discussion on how we can make something work rather than simply point out what is broke. After all, nobody has ever been cured by a diagnosis.
I’m thinking that this positive season will come and we will see some good discussion on how to repoint the bricks.
Dan, I agree that we’re not innovative; but, I don’t think this is why we’re not growing. I actually think its the emphasis on innovation, whether archaic or new, that’s the problem. We’ve made our primary evangelism tool our church buildings (modernism), instead of every Christian taking Jesus with them as they go about their daily lives (The NT example). Southern Baptists harp on evangelism while refusing to walk next door to seek the souls of their neighbors. Whether people come to our church services would be irrelevant if we are simply taking the name of Jesus with us on a daily basis, as we seize our various cultures (vocations, schools, recreation, etc.) to reveal God’s glory.
As we discuss this “growing/not growing, innovative/not innovative, narrow/broad” or whatever may be contributing to the SBC being less than we can be I think it is interesting that the fastest growing protestant denomination in the world is the Seventh Day Adventists.
I just read that and was quite surprised. I don’t mean this to be a Adventist bashing, but I wonder what is the connection between inerrancy and growth? As far as I know, Adventists are Bible-loving people but I don’t think they argue much about inerrancy (Calvinism, etc.)
We won the “Fight for the Bible,” but the victory seems hollow. I really appreciate this thread because it seems like such a critical discussion to have.
As I said, I just add the note about Adventists because their growth is at about 2.5% per year which is astounding. Could there be something we could learn from them (that is those of us who do not believe they are devil worshippers).
Please do not use this post as a jumping off point to dissect their doctrine. That’s not my intent.
Hey Frank,
This may sound like I’m doubting you, but I’m not.
Where did you get the 2.5% figure because I just came across some literature (albeit biased literature) that was proclaiming the Assemblies of God as the fastest growing denomination.
I would love to get my hands on your info so I could compare the two and try to figure out how they’re setting up their math in order to set themselves apart.
Thanks,
bill
I don’t remember now, it might have been on a website news item.
The figure for the Assemblies may be because Seventh Day Adventists are not considered evangelical, or even protestant by some surveyors.
As I recall, the Adventists were even ahead of the Mormons. Sorry I don’t remember.
The National Council of Churches is the only group I know of that puts out a yearly report on American churches in terms of membership growth/decline. NCC asks denominational bodies to self-report these stats. So, if you’ll notice, the African-American groups, specifically the Baptist groups, have not reported a change in membership size in years.
The 2011 report had these stats:
Mormons – + 1.42 percent
AoG – +.52 percent
Jehovah’s – +4.37 percent
Church of God (Cleveland, TN) – +.38 percent
Seventh-Day Adventist – +4.32
All these numbers of course vary year to year. But in the last handful of years, these groups have pretty much been the only ones to report membership increases. AoG consistently reports increases.
So many of these groups don’t report numbers – making it difficult to provide any useful analysis. The SBC has reported small declines the last few years. This year it is .42 percent. Compared to the other groups in the Top 25, the SBC is really rather average. Considering that the largest yearly increase comes from strict sects like SDA and JW (at only 4 percent growth) and that the SBC is down better than all groups in Top 10 (except Catholics and Mormons), these stats wouldn’t lead any level-headed person familiar with numbers and history to embrace a sky is falling mentality.
Truth is, the SBC has been declining for decades now in terms of market share of the entire American religious economy. But so has every other comparable large denomination – and the SBC generally beats those denominations.
Thank you to both Frank and BDW. As soon as I get home, I’m going to research AoG’s claims and how they set up their math.
If I find anything interesting, I’ll post it here.
Thank you to both Frank and BDW. As soon as I get home, I’m going to research AoG’s claims and how they set up their math.
If I find anything interesting, I’ll post it here.
If the “brick and mortar church is doomed” (and I am not claiming that it is not) what alternative was proposed at the conference? What does the post “brick and mortar church” era look like? Do we revert to home churches or do we begin meeting in schools and community centers?
It is very frustrating when these types of claims are made but no solutions or possible solutions are also given.
It all goes away in the end — all the bricks, all the school buildings and community centers, wherever you are meeting.
Only two things on earth right now are eternal — the Word of God, that stands forever, and people.
Why not concentrate on proclaiming/delivering to people the Word of God?
Why do we make it complicated? Mark 16:15
Am I wrong that when someone puts on a conference, they generally like to have people pay money to attend. To get a crowd one might toss out a catchy, provocative, engaging title, some personalities, some white hot church plants, some of the stuff that will attract folks.
Fine.
And then the promoters will certainly dispense with the sameold, sameold stuff, will trot out the testimonies, some personalities, some chicken little types? Won’t they have some major league ‘look what we’re doing’ folks, and isn’t it pretty standard to pooh pooh the red brick, white columned crossroads Baptist Church that has a century old history, generations of faithful members, and which is the backbone of the SBC, and will be for the forseeable future in favor of offering a steady diet of naysaying, gloom and doom?
OK, I admit to some cynicism and stereotyping here, but I’ve heard this for at least two generations. NO, the red brick, white mortar church is NOT doomed. There are challenges. And NO, the 11 am service is not doomed. There are some transitions and challenges there too.
Let those who have creative ideas get out there and do it. Let the brethren get excited about creativity and innovation.
Heck, you don’t even need to bury traditional churches to do that…but you might sell more conference seats if you do. 😉
I’m for anyone who preaches Christ.
The conference didn’t say the brink and mortar is doomed, I did. They actually looked at the combination of church planting and the mega church movement. I think the days of buying property and building a building will be over and church will become much more communial. Property values, it’s harder and harder to get tax exempt status. It’s not looking good folks, we gotta look up once in a while.
I heard Hirsh speak at a church planting conference a couple of years ago. He had done some studies that showed that only about 30 percent of the population would even consider going to contemporary church models. So he is looking at more than just the typical brick and mortar churches. What I took away from his message was that these types of churches better consider different means and methods to reaching a broader spectrum of the population.
I was encouraged as a pastor of a traditional church that we still have an appeal to most people in our rural community. We still have a huge opportunity to reach many people but we also need to be aware of ways we need to innovate. I agree that discipleship should be at the core of this.
And, then there are the studies that show 75% of the people surveyed would be hghly likely to attend a church if someone invited them.
When I was running for office at one time my campaign manager said something about “studies” that I’ve never forgotten: “Figures don’t lie, but liars will figure.”
I don’t think we are going to be able to “survey” ourselves into revival — but that’s just my opinion based upon a survey of myself.
Frank- You have stumbled on one of the BIGGEST problems in the SBC and it is not about theology or methodology it is about obedience.
I doubt the figure, but you cite that 75% of surveyed people would go to a church “if someone invited them.”
– This answer bypasses Sunday school or small groups
– it bypasses the hymnal or the power-point
– it bypasses stand-alone-brick-&-mortar or the store-front-strip-center location.
We seem to want growth (mostly for the wrong reasons) but fail to do the simplest and most obedient thing: tell people about Jesus and invite them to attend church with us. I’m not sure what the #1 hold up is though:
1) we don’t know our neighbors, co-workers, or enough sinners in general
2) we afraid of what they will think when we ask
3) we are afraid that they will say “no” and then be on their way to hell – (hint: they are already on the express train to hell if they don’t have Jesus, a no answer doesn’t get them there any faster)
I think the issue is one of obedience – we need to be his witnesses, ambassadors from another country, proclaimers; and leave the results up to Him.
Greg, are you saying Christians are commanded to invite people to corporate worship?
Way to miss the point Mark, but I applaud your sarcastic wit. Makes me smile.
Sarcastic wit is always appreciate at SBC Voices!
Dan B., what made me ask the question is Greg’s sentence that stated, “We seem to want growth (mostly for the wrong reasons) but fail to do the simplest and most obedient thing: tell people about Jesus and invite them to attend church with us.”
So are we commanded to invite people to corporate worship?
I basically agree with Greg. I would say that people are more prone to invite people to church, but never tell them about Jesus. It is easier to invite someone to church and expect someone else, i.e. the pastor during his sermon, to share the gospel. This happened to me not too long ago during a local outreach. I told one Christian what we were doing when some fresh people showed up to participate. I explained how we were attempting to engage people and share the gospel. She said she did know about sharing the gospel, but she thought she would just invite them to church on Sunday.
Dan, are you ready for some real sarcasm? 🙂
Mark, I eat with Dan just about once a week. If you want to get into a sarcasmathon with him, make sure you come armed and ready!
Not much more I enjoy than an SBC Sarcastithon!
So, if people you lead are not willing to share the gospel, do you tell them you don’t want them inviting anyone to church and putting the responsibility on the pastor or someone else to share the gospel for them?
As a pastor, if someone is willing to invite someone else to church in such a winsome manner they actually attend, then, I feel privileged to get the opportunity to share the gospel with them.
Sure, I wish everyone was an Arthur Blissett or Dwight Moody, but if all they feel comfortable doing is inviting someone to church, then, I’ll take that as a great step in the right direction.
Greg,
Part of the hold up might be we don’t think Jesus is a powerful enough personality to win people to Himself, and/or we don’t think our church services are meaningful enough to capture the attention of a non-believer.
It seems we lack complete trust in the power of the Holy Spirit and we are perhaps a little “embarrassed” about our church services — and probably a little of both.
‘excitement’ isn’t one of the ‘fruits’ of the Holy Spirit
I have plenty of critiques of the way “Church” is operated in America. But…
I do enjoy the irony, though, of a major “brick-and-mortar” conference gathering thousands of people with great speakers, excellent worship bands, fancy promotional flyers and websites…and then bagging on American churches for doing the same thing.
Josh, EXCELLENT!
Don’t be to hard on a conference because I integrated some of their ideas with my own.
We focus as a people far too much on the mechanics of our faith, the music, the buildings, our organizations, the mission structures that support evangelism. We need to see the difference between the structures which are important but temporary and the life within which is eternal. It is in fact the life within that was the point of our evangelism and our structures. Baptists spend far too much time and engergy maintaining the structure so that there are not enough cycles to focus on the life of Christ within us that are message bearers for in the world. We are distracted with many things.
It would be interesting to see how ‘church was done’ 100 years ago. I’m sure it was quite a bit different than it is today. Sometimes we get so tied to the tradition of how things are now that we can’t look outside the box. I’m not for wholesale chucking of how we do things now, but showing how things have changed over time may calm the fears of those averse to change and give hope to those who want change now. We claim to be people of the Book, but sometimes we seem more interested in preserving the status quo of our traditions.
The ‘physical structures’ aren’t ‘the Church’, of course.
And the Apostles were not advocating the building of physical structures or ‘innovations’ that took the focus off of Our Lord.
Their focus was to guard closely what they had received and to pass it on intact to the ones who would receive the Christian mysteries, so that nothing was lost of what Christ had given to them.
On Earth, the ‘Church’ is visible, but it is not ‘enclosed’ in brick and mortar. It’s exclusiveness lies in the truth that the Church can be for us a sanctuary in this world from evil, and that the Church is a faithful guardian of The Word kept intact, for the benefit of all mankind.
And ‘innovations’?
It is ‘The Word’ which changes, or makes new, those in this world who receive it. This ‘innovation’ is a ‘newness of life’ that is the direct work of the Holy Spirit on the hearts of those who turn towards the ‘Eternal Word’ and are ‘made new’ in Christ the Lord.
To ‘innovate’ is to ‘make new’.
The focus is on Our Saving Lord, our source of abundant life.
1 Cor.11:23
“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you . . . “
Aaron said, “studies that showed that only about 30 percent of the population would even consider going to contemporary church models”.
Here’s where we need to be careful not to fall into the seeker sensitive/mega church idea of taloring church to the fit desires of pagans.
You make very excellent points.
I came across the bible that I used heavily when I was involved in the youth group of the church that I still attend twenty-five years later.
In it, I found an old worship bulletin so I decided to compare and contrast it against the one that I picked up on Mother’s Day. Now, please be aware that a little over twenty-one years has passed between the two bulletin.
They are formatted the same and still printed on the same paper stock since the church has not changed printing companies nor invested in their own printing capabilities.
The back page still carries a short blurb from the pastor along with some space for note taking. I didn’t realize that we’ve had four pastors in twenty years until I got to thinking about the timeline between these two bulletins.
The organist is still the same. In fact, the organ is still the same after the church has spent over 1.2 million dollars in twenty years to maintain the organ. This includes a $650K renovation and upkeep costs. You do the math.
The basic layouts of the two services, with the exception of the dedicated time to recognize the mothers in the congregation, were identical from the prelude all the way to the postlude. Their positions within the service themselves from the welcome to the worship set to the choir special to the sermon were all in the same positions twenty years later. Ironically enough, the choir special happened to the be the same song twenty years later. The only reason they sounded different is because we’re on our fifth worship pastor in twenty years as well. I couldn’t remember the older performance but I was blessed to hear our current choir’s rendition of the song.
Also, I think both services got out around the same time as well, but that’s purely anecdotal because I didn’t make a record of when we left the earlier service.
So, twenty-one years later, my church still operates in the same way with very few changes. Even some of the programs promoted in the earlier bulletin were still clamoring for volunteers all these years later…
Bill,
I dare say your informal experiment would have the same results at a lot of churches I have been a part of over the years. I couldn’t help but chuckle that the song for the choir special was the same one though. Perhaps a new saying is in order. If it ain’t fixed, don’t break it.
I just had this conversation with someone in my church. When we are so fixated on nothing changing, we look like we’re just stubborn. If we would permit at least a few things to be different, when we highlight that unchanging truth is firm, we might have more credibility.
Instead, most of us spend too much time trying to be some past decade—be it the 50s, 70s, or 90s.