William Thornton is the SBC Plodder.
Occasionally, I run across an assertion or a statistic that stops me cold. Here is one that did just that:
“Fear of change is one of the reasons one in four congregations will close during the next 15 years…”
Let me digest this: Twenty-five percent of American congregations will not be present fifteen years hence?
Jeff Brumley of Associated Baptist Press has an interesting article on the future of churches, Experts seek balance between optimism and pessimism in future of congregations, in which he quotes Bill Wilson, founder of The Center for Healthy Churches, as making the assertion above. I have found Wilson’s material to be quite insightful and helpful generally but do not know where he got this figure. In the same piece Thom Ranier says that 20% of American Protestant churches will close in the next two decades. George Bullard, who was a South Carolina Baptist Convention executive when I served in that state, is featured in the article. I have read a good bit of his material and find that he has some astute observations about churches and denominations. You can find links in the ABP piece for all of these people.
There are about 46,000 SBC churches. If Wilson is correct then we can expect to see 11,500 SBC churches disappear by 2030. I suspect that the 25% figure was for all US congregations and rates of closing would differ among the different groups. Almost certainly, we will not be seeing two SBC churches per day closing their doors; however, I suspect that we will see increasing numbers in the years ahead. (Note here that we are not talking about net growth or loss. We are starting churches so no one expects the total number to decline by one-fourth.)
Which brings me to the concept of church revitalization, a perennial topic and thrust in SBC life and one that everyone favors. The various SBC and state convention organizations have church revitalization programs and personnel and have for decades. Alas, I am unaware of any effective top-down revitalization program. There is no national or even state convention program for revitalization of congregations that I see as holding much promise. If your state has one, and has a track record of success, I’d like to know about it. It makes sense to me that the most effective program for church revitalization would be found at the level closest to churches – the association. My local association has a program that is very attractive. It is also very new and without any history, so there are no results to evaluate, but I like what I know about it.
I’ve preached in a few very small churches whose future is extremely precarious. I’d not be surprised if some of these go defunct but, who knows? With our recipe of local church autonomy (and the fact that churches have no tax bill to pay every year) it is not difficult for a couple of dozen people to hang on to their building and church for years and years. You can always get a supply preacher cheaply.
The question is do these churches desire to be healthy, effective, ministering churches?
Some do. Some don’t.
We should put some resources in those that do and let those that don’t die a natural death. Things change. Demographics change. Geographic population distributions change. Churches should change as well. Some should close.
If we have sums of money to spend it is more likely that our best results will come from starting new churches rather than trying to resuscitate old ones. One of the points that all the experts agree upon is that it is extremely difficult to revitalize a church and few are successful at it.
I see nothing that dissuades me from agreeing with that.
Wondered whatever happened to Bill Wilson. We were in an association together in Southside VA a million years ago.
William,
THANK YOU for a transparent and accurate post.
You site numerous revitalization efforts hosted at various levels in SBC life. The missing ingredient in all of these proposals is this – – they refuse to acknowledge that numbers is an IDOL in the SBC. Unless and until the prevailing METRIC applied to measure effectiveness is NOT mere numerical one dimensional issues; attendance, offerings baptisms, etc. there will be no lasting renewal.
TRANSFORMATION is what we must measure and that is quite possible but exceedingly unpopular. I will gladly converse with any who would like to review the process that enables people and churches to measure transformation. Again, THANK YOU for telling the TRUTH!
In Grace,
Tom Fillinger
803 413 3509
William T
Excellent as always. An observation….SB have never had a revitalization initiative of which i am aware. What we have historically had has been a process which was designed to disseminate programs, materials etc. from the top down. This is not revitalization. Another observation….John Bisango took one plateaued church (Dell City Okla.) and one declining church (FBC Houston) and put both on a growing cutting edge. He was a great leader of course. But it seems to me that both church planting and church revitalization will take good leaders. This leads to a question….In your opinion. William, if we put the same emphasis, training etc into revitalization as we do into church planting would we see results comparable to church planting. This is an honest question, I do not know. I will admit that I would like to see much more emphasis placed on revitalization.
DL my answer to your question is “no”. It’s just easier, so I read and hear, to start a new church.
I am not sure I like your answer, but I suspect you are correct. My concern is what do we do when the new starts plateau or decline. Somewhere along the way it would be to our advantage to discover how to revitalize. Perhaps the answer lies in a discovery process before the church gets to the point of no return. I really don’t know, I am frustrated by the whole concept. I don’t like losing churches.
Perhaps it is the fact that new churches are often started in a fast growing section of the area that is un- or under-churched. The churches that shut down are likely in rural areas with a declining population or city areas that either are not growing or which are undergoing significant racial change.
FBC Houston moved well out of downtown to a relatively more prosperous area with lots of prosperous people. Accomplishing this is not trivial, but in some respects it was more like a “church plant” than a revitalization.
“The question is do these churches desire to be healthy, effective, ministering churches?”
That’s an important question. If they don’t have this desire then they are closed already.
Allow me to be a bit peevish here, but an unhealthy, ineffective church with limited ministry has value. I look at some of the severely declined churches I have supplied at and see good, well intentioned people who do a few church things right. They may face severe challenges but haven’t ceased being one of God’s congregations.
There are declining “unhealthy” churches that are full of older people who have been faithful and have minister in our Lord’s name for decades. They are the ones who gave 10% or more to the CP. They paid for the buildings and the state offices etc. Now for various reasons they are more spectators and objects of ministry. They deserve more that to be disrespected because they are not “healthy” doing sports camps etc. They deserve more than a “transitional” church that sings music they do not like nor understand and a pastor preaching on finances and raising children. I say respect these churches, let them go out ministering to each other, worshiping together, and fellowshipping together with pride dignity and respect. They have earned that. They do not need to be viewed as standing in the way of “progress”. I have seen these folks shoved aside because the church needed to become dynamic, only to watch the “dynamic intent” wither and produce little.
Yes I feel very strongly about this. Does it show?
I agree with my passionately disgruntled retired DOM friend on this. On the other hand the old codgers and codgeresses in these churches would probably welcome some level of change if it led to their children and grandchildren not leaving for a more dynamic church situation.
William T
That is a valid point.
By the way, passionate? Yes! Retired? Yes! Friend? I would count that an honor! Disgruntled? I would prefer frustrated! 🙂
William and D.L.,
I find it interesting that you both sqeezed my comment into a preconcieved pattern that I didn’t mean.
Even a church of older people should desire to be healthy, effective, and ministering (I’ll call this “HEM”). A church of young people can also be “closed” because they are not HEM. A church that is large doesn’t mean that it’s HEM. A church that is small doesn’t mean that it’s not HEM. I know all kinds of small churches with predominantly older people that are HEM. Joel Osteen’s church is extremely large and apparently vibrant, but I wouldn’t call it HEM in the least because their theology is terrible.
If anyone, old or young, goes to a church simply because of the music or lets arguments over the style of music prevent the church from being HEM, they are wrong and spiritually immature. It is imcumbent on the spiritually mature to seek to minister to the spiritually immature in the way most effective to disciple them such that they become more mature. If we have spiritually mature older people, their job in the kingdom isn’t done simply because technology and the culture has passed them by. More than ever we need them to disciple spiritually immature people, especially young peoplr that the culture is drawing away. It won’t do for them to sit back and expect to be catered to by people who are less spiritually mature than they are. That doesn’t entail scowling, pointing angry fingers, and telling young people that they are spiritually immature and simply need to sing the old hymns. That means studying the disciples entrusted to them so that they can develop effective ways of helping them grow spiritually.
By the same token, if we have young people who are spiritually mature because the turn of the culture has awoken them from the ills of Therapeutic Moralistic Deism (TMD) of previous generations, then they need to A) disciple their peers who are still spiritually immature and B) disciple in the most respectful way possible older people who were brought up in TMD and are averse to setting it aside. It doesn’t mean simply leaving them for a church that has a rock band. It means sticking with a church that needs them in order to become a HEM church rather than leaving for a church that looks like a HEM church, but really isn’t.
So the question is: who claims to be spiritually mature enough to do the ministry to those they think are not spiritually mature?
Jim
I agree with the vast majority of what you say. You are not wrong you are thinking deeper than I admittedly. I am coming from a different direction, to wit…my experience has been that most of the time when a church is accused of being “un HEM” it is because people refuse to change. That has been stated in this thread regarding a seminary experience. This is simply wrong. People will change, even old folks if that change is demonstrated to have exegeted the culture rather than something copied from a growing church or from a book on church revitalization, a it worked there so it will work here mentality. The “model mentality” has been a death not to many churches.
For example, a true story. A pastor came to a church that was “un HEM”. Music especially was atrocious with stale hymns etc. that no one enjoyed. It needed to change. It was a small red neck cowboy town. The pastor installed rock contemporary music in that red neck church where the only music they knew was country. Had he never heard of a steel guitar? They would have accepted country gospel but not rock.
I’m working on a d.min in church revitalization… I’d say a couple of things to your last points: 1) it’s a fairly “young discipline” compared to church planting, so success results are gonna be a bit skewed; but 2) attempts at it can use les monetary resources than planting–even if you shut a church down, change the name, and bring in a new pastor and then reopen, you already have a building, land, etc. True, it’s effectiveness, overall, is still to be seen, but it has potential.
As for the state–(yeah, I edited out what I’ll label as hearsay at the present and will keep my mouth shut instead… Mike)
Mike
Back in the late 70’s or early 80’s there was some successful revitalization going on. John Bisango did some in Houston as well as some others. It did not become a “movement” by any stretch of the imagination.
From my experience shutting down, changing the name etc has not been effective if the restart is with the same people. The same people bring the same problems and apathy.
I”m not sure who or what exactly you are referring to, here in Missouri.
Probably some stuff not too well known…
Yet…
Well my curiosity is sure picquet.
Again, I can’t think of anyone or anything that would fit your statements. If it is “not too well known” how is it you know about it? And this “big name”? Unless you would like to share with the rest of the class, I am going to have serious doubts about the validity of what you have suggested is happening in Missouri.
That’s fine. Let’s just chalk this up to something that I thought was more well known, but probably fits more into the category of not so much. So instead of getting into the fun of who said what about which thing… I’m just going to slowly back away from my keyboard and reverse out of this part of the conversation… and remind myself that I actually dislike the inner workings of the Baptist machinery.
Here are some books that I required my Ph.D. students at SWBTS to read during a church revitalization seminar this spring (CHVIT 7804-A “Revitalization and the Local Church”):
Bullard, George Jr. Pursuing the Full Kingdom Potential of Your Congregation.
Saint Louis: Lake Hickory Resources, 2005. (240 pages)
Dale, Robert. To Dream Again. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1981. (154 pages)
Hammett, John. Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary
Ecclesiology. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005. (368 pages)
Malphurs, Aubrey. Advanced Strategic Planning: A 21st-Century Model for
Church and Ministry Leaders. Third Edition. Grand Rapids: Baker Books,
2013. (384 pages)
Mancini, Will. Church Unique: How Missional Leaders Cast Vision, Capture
Culture, and Create Movement. Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass, 2008. (271
pages)
McIntosh, Gary. There’s Hope for Your Church: First Steps to Restoring Health
and Growth. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2012. (208 pages)
Parr, Steve. Sunday School That Really Works: A Strategy for Connecting
Congregations and Communities. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2010. (224
pages)
Rainer, Thom. The Unchurched Next Door. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003. (270
pages)
Rainer, Thom, and Sam Rainer. Essential Church?: Reclaiming a Generation of
Dropouts. Nashville: B&H, 2008. (259 pages)
Sande, Ken. The Peacemaker: A Biblical Guide to Resolving Personal Conflict.
Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004. (318 pages)
I hope these books will be helpful. I took the students on an actual consultation to a local church this spring, and it helped students understand the process through a hands-on experience in which we administered a survey to church members, looked at the history of the church, etc. Chuck Lawless at SEBTS has developed a church health survey consisting of 160 questions, and I believe that this survey provides an objective look at issues in particular churches. Of course, revitalization usually takes a lot of time and effort. The Southern Baptists of Texas Convention has developed a good revitalization program, the Ezekiel process, that recognizes that some churches have deeper problems than others. The program is tailored to meet divergent needs–one size does not fit all.
Mike Morris
I know we can write books on the subject. I know we can design programs (always promoted as being “tailored” to the needs of congregations and not “one size fits all”). I know we can hire big names and give them a title. I know we can point to some mega pastors who have been successful. I don’t know if we can point to any track record of success.
I would be curious if the SBCT program has data – churches served, churches revitalized by relevant measures of results.
As with anything revitalization success relies on the pastor and his commitment to stay. The SBTC has a number of methods in luring the Ezekiel Project; success rates have been 50%; and that’s based on about half the pastors end up leaving and not following through. As for measurements, the pastor & church define success. Yes numbers are a consideration, because even though the current mantra is change the scorecard, I have never served at a growing church where we did not keep track of baptisms and worship attendance, but no one says revitalization is not occurring just because attendance has not increased. That is why the pastor and church help define success.
Thanks for your input, Kenneth.
Kenneth
You make some valid observations. However there does seem to be a little too much “wiggle room” in the success factor. Numbers for the sake of numbers and bragging rights are sinful. However, it does seem that a revitalized church will grow numerically. If people are not born into the kingdom then what is the purpose of revitalization.
Mike: Chuck Lawless at SEBTS has developed a church health survey consisting of 160 questions … .
Norm: What are the scales that are derived from this questionnaire? Thanks.
Norm, the report of the survey results first gives a demographic report on the respondents as pie charts showing the percentage of respondents according to gender, age, years as a Christian, years as a member of that church, and hours spent each week in all church activities and ministries. Then it gives an overall score for the church and also scores for six areas: ministry, fellowship, worship, prayer, evangelism, and discipleship. For each of the six areas, the report chooses four statements in each area that reveal something important about the church. Church members do not put their names on the survey forms. Thus, for example, some members in face-to-face interviews might not mention an ongoing conflict, but the anonymous survey might reveal that an ongoing conflict exists. There are 160 statements in the survey, and the person gives one of five responses: strongly agree, agree, undecided, disagree, or strongly disagree. For example, number four states, “People in our church share their faith regularly.” The responses to that one statement will reveal a lot about the church. The report gives the percentage of responses to each of the 160 statements.
Thanks, Mike. I am getting a better picture of what is reported. This is what I understand so far: demographic section, overall score, and a facet score for each of the six areas (i.e., ministry, fellowship, worship, prayer, evangelism, discipleship). Can you say more about the four statements? Are these subscales of each of the six areas? Are these just the four highest or lowest items, or some combination thereof, of all the items for the respective area (i.e., ministry, fellowship, worship, prayer, evangelism, discipleship)? Other? Thanks.
Each of the 160 statements is scored. My impression is that they look at the highest and lowest scores for statements relating to each of the six areas and pick out four that reveal something interesting about each area. For example, in the area of worship, the scores may indicate that most members like their worship facility and prevailing music style, but they may also feel that the facility does not have enough room for growth and also needs repairs. So, four statements with revealing responses are chosen and analyzed for each of the six areas.
P.S.: There’s not a statement about repairs; I’m just using that as an example.
Thanks, Mike. I have a better understanding. I hope the Lawless Group is compiling these data for subsequent publication for or presentation to other church researchers. Organizational development work is appreciated by this person.
William, I do not have an answer as to an SBC program for revitalization. I want to share one story of revitalization that is incredible. 19th Avenue Baptist Church in Hattiesburg, MS took a secret ballot vote to disband the church and give the property to the association. The location of the church is a challenge with neighborhoods changing and the community being transit. This led to the decline of a good church. Their membership simply moved away or died. The vote failed by one vote thus keeping the doors of the church open. 17 people were present for the vote. They called a music evangelist, Monty Bounds to be their pastor. To make an incredible story short a few years later they now average 130 -140 in worship service and have built their ministry around 3 or 4 incredible events a year that draw over 300 for each event thus providing prospects. I do not believe I have ever met Monty Bounds but I am grateful for his revitalization effort at 19th Avenue Baptist Church.
I do want to add a somewhat different perspective and hang out on your statement, “some should close.” While we should never celebrate a church going out of business in some cases it could lead to better things for the Kingdom. A few churches I am familiar with in some metro areas could easily be absorbed into somewhat larger churches nearby sparking excitement among both church families and great things could result.
It’s always encouraging to hear a success story. In your example a new, charismatic leader was the agent for change and revitalization. I’d bet than many pastors who feel a need for some degree of revitalization are silently wary of the change-by-charismatic-leader methodology and would benefit from an associational missionary affirming them and their church and being open to a level of assistance that the present pastor feels appropriate.
William
Amen an Amen my brother. Best statement of the day.
Dean
What you say is true. however, there are still people around the building that has been vacated that need the gospel. People are people and should be reached. I am not sure absorbing folks into another fellowship always produces a good result. those being absorbed will take their attitudes with them and could effect the absorbing church. It is the same problem with using the same people for a restart.
Well, Dean, I’m not a music minister but that’s exactly what we are trying to. One big key is following up with the prospects and building relationships, not just a one time door knock. The description you gave of the neighborhood and church fits us to a tee. 40 voted on me and we’re about 60-65 now, and that having buried 17 in 3 years. Our neighborhood has turned over completely from what used to be middle class to now inner city. Greatest mission field I’ve ever seen. 6000 people within 1 mile of the church, most lost, from every tribe, tongue and nation. We still have a long, long way to go, but we have a solid, committed core who is focused outwardly(most of them seniors) and we’ve added some younger folks who have given us an energy boost. Their are literally thousands of churches like us and the one you described out here, where the neighborhood changed and the church didn’t. We had zero children when we arrived, and now have 25-40 neighborhood kids regularly on Wed/Sun nights and have been close to 60 at times. You have to be persistent in prayer, consistent in action, have a lot of love(because you don’t have great music/programs/facilities), and think outside the box. One thing I’ve found is people at many levels of the SBC say we need to think outside the box, but don’t really know how too
We will probably see a diminution of our churches, but one of the reasons will be due to our lack of understanding of the intellectual depths of Holy Scripture. After all, if Omniscience inspired the book, then the book must reflect a wisdom commensurate with such a source. If we were to institute a vigorous prayer effort involving Jonathan Edwards’ Humble Attempt, we might actually evade and avoid a decline. Indeed, we might experience a Third Great Awakening that would win the whole world to Christ in one generation and continue to do so for a 1000 generations. Even more to the point, the Awakening could spread to all of the new worlds/planets which are about to open to mankind when the discoveries concerning faster than light travel began to be made known. I was listening to Cold Case Christianity tonight, and the speaker said that one investigator had been trained in architecture and that this training enabled that individual to look at a crime scene differently and bring about a resolution to it. Having degrees in three different fields, namely, history, theology, and counseling, along with a rather extensive knowledge of a number of other fields plus the willingness to consider new methods of thought and examination and investigation, I have found that it is indeed the case that different methods of training actually enable a person to look at a situation from other perspectives than the ones prescribed by the scholars in and of that field. It was my training in intellectual history that enabled me to withstand the critical assaults of skeptical scholars, when many in our seminaries were so-called liberals (actually skepticals would be a better term). And then there is the knowledge from counseling, that of therapeutic paradoxes which opened new doors to controversial texts. And in the intellectual realm, it was found that the scientific method itself had its weaknesses, weaknesses which opened the door to whole new approaches like that of a synthetical approach and of looking at biblical teachings in a different way with different designs for human thought. I suggest that we ought to have meeting which involve looking at the Bible in new and challenging ways in order to come to grips with the spirit of the age which is rolling in on us.
in the church I pastor the church will be closed by 2030 if there is no revitalization. In our association we have three churches in danger of closing within the next 5-10 years. I am devouring as much info as possible on church revitalization as possible and except moral support my association is not much help. What I have found most helpful is being able to sit down and talk to pastors who have revitalized already and developing patience and a tough skin. Our seminaries I believe also should be more involved in preparing pastors for the work of revitalization. I would also appreciate your prayers
in the church I pastor the church will be closed by 2030 if there is no revitalization. In our association we have three churches in danger of closing within the next 5-10 years. I am devouring as much info as possible on church revitalization as possible and except moral support my association is not much help. What I have found most helpful is being able to sit down and talk to pastors who have revitalized already and developing patience and a tough skin. Our seminaries I believe also should be more involved in preparing pastors for the work of revitalization. I would also appreciate your prayers
I read a while back of a bigger more healthy church sending a group of people to a nearby church that was about to close the doors. The dying leadership gave up control and allowed the bigger church to send in a pastor. I think this model could help in two areas. It frees up resources so the growing church does not have to build more buildings and saves the other church from dying. The main issue is the smaller church has to give up the helm of the sinking ship.
I agree that the best thing our big SBC organizations can do is instill in every seminary student that they will either be involved in church planting, or church revitalization, and train them accordingly. A godly, determined, patient, well-equipped, people-loving, hard-working pastor will do much more for a struggling church than a few consultations with a state rep or the lawless group.
Thanks to Dr. Morris for his helpful bibliography. I would add George Barna’s book, Turnaround Churches and Rodney Woo’s The Color of Church. When I taught at Southern Baptist Seminary, I supervised a study of dying churches in Louisville. We identified 10 churches that were dying. We offered them assistance to “turn around.” All ten churches were eager for assistance in the form of money and seminary interns. None of the ten churches was willing to change their approach to ministry and worship style. In other words, they wanted help to continue doing what they had been doing. Change is essential for turnaround churches, but few older churches are willing to change. Revitalization requires dynamic pastoral leadership. Few pastors are able and willing to do this. The reason is simple–planting a new church is much easier than revitalizing an old one.
When will someone hear what I am saying? The answer is prayer, prayer, prayer, and more prayer. If you want to change the dead churches, to revitalize them, your only hope of doing so is at the throne of grace. There we come speaking boldly that we might find mercy and obtain grace to help in time of need. There we plead the promises of God until He comes to fulfill, to do us good as David pleaded He had promised.
Dr. James I agree that prayer is the key and everything is undergirded with prayer but also developing strategies to mobilize an apathetic or unzealous church are also helpful as well as ways to build relationships with people within and outside the church. Also conflict management is something that can be taught as well.
Someone said earlier that a good method was allowing a larger church to come and takeover the smaller dying church. I would caution people that consider this method. In my region of Missouri one of the local AG churches has done this with many of the smaller AG churches and they have developed a reputation of being a bulky church whether justified or not caution is needed.
Dear Andrew: Our problem is our lack of knowledge of our past and how our predecessors did the work of ministry, especially that of prayer. For example, the prayer for a visitation, a revival, an awakening, might take a long time (I think the Reformation was in answer to the prayers of a thousand years), but the end results fully exceed all expectations. Methods will not do in such cases. In the long run, they run out of steam due to the lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit. Permit a few stories from history. Consider how in one county in Arkansas back in the 1800s (told to the class by a professor who grew up in that county), they had a revival and as a result there was not a single criminal case to come before the country grand jury for 10 years. You will, no doubt, remember the white gloves given to officers and magistrates in Wales, because they had no crimes to handle. Mordecai Fowler Ham, the fellow under whom Billy Graham was converted, held a crusade in Burlington, NC, about a 30-40 minute drive from where I am now sitting and typing. This was, so I understand, back in the 20s, and as a result for 2 years there was not a single crime committed in the city of Burlington. Shall I tell you about Whitefield and others back in the 1700s. I have a family history in my library, given to me by a member of that family, where two brothers and their mother were call converted under Whitefield. One branch of the family became Presbyterian, and the other Baptist (a Baptist minister in that family was a personal friend. He died a few years ago). The history of commitments in that family run through two centuries. In the 1800s among Southern Baptists, a minister preaching a revival might take two-three weeks of preaching before he gave a single invitation, if he gave one at all. Of course, there were those who, I suppose, did it all the time. More recently, a fellow who began college in the 40s told of a minister friend friend who said he should not have started to give the invitations, when he did as the people were not really ready for it. The attendance at worship services could and often were tremendous. The effect of the ministers was tremendous; they were respected, and their views carried weight. One pastor friend saw the pastor of the FBC of North Charleston, SC, walk out on a ball field on a Sunday afternoon and hold out his hand for the ball, saying, we are not going to disgrace the Lord by playing games.(I tell this not to necessarily agree, but to indicate the pastor’s influence). My pastor friend, an intern that summer, said the teenagers handed the pastor the ball and went home quietly and respectfully. In Arkansas two towns nearly came to a knife fight over a baseball team member from the other town spiking and injuring one of the home town players. The pastor, a little short fellow, walked out on the field and pointed at individuals and said, “Put those knives up. We are not going to disgrace this town.” They put up the knives and the game continued. Or have you read Ben Franklin’s description of Philadelphia following the preaching of Whitefield there: “the whole world had grown religious.”(But check the quote out as my memory is not as good as it use to be.).
Again, while preaching in Charleston, SC, Whitefield pointed at a free Black man who had come out to stir up discord in the meeting (though Whitefield did not know this), and quoted his text for the message, “Prepare to meet thy God, O Israel.” The man went flying backwards, just like the description in John’s Gospel where Jesus said, “I am,” and 60 Soldiers went flying backwards and fell to the ground. In any case, the Black fellow fell to the ground senseless, and Whitefield appointed the pastor of the FBC of Charleston to see to him. Two-three days later the man was converted and became a preacher and a missionary. See the story in Dr. Thomas Kidd’s The Great Awakening, Yale Univ. Press, 2008. Now read the description of Edwards’ Humble Attempt on the Baptists in England in 1785 and the results that followed from it. I could continue, but the matter of prayer is far more important than any methodology except the methodology of love expressed in prayer and practice.
Dr. James I agree that prayer is the key and everything is undergirded with prayer but also developing strategies to mobilize an apathetic or unzealous church are also helpful as well as ways to build relationships with people within and outside the church. Also conflict management is something that can be taught as well.
Someone said earlier that a good method was allowing a larger church to come and takeover the smaller dying church. I would caution people that consider this method. In my region of Missouri one of the local AG churches has done this with many of the smaller AG churches and they have developed a reputation of being a bulky church whether justified or not caution is needed.
Andrew, for many dying churches, especially ones like ours where the neighborhood has drastically changed, their is one truth that must be accepted. If the church is to be revitalized, we have to accept that in 10 years it will look radically different from what its has looked like or does now. If we are to be revitalized here, in 10 years we’ll be an 80% African-American church, not an 80% white church, as that is what our neighborhood looks like. You have a congregation accept that, and then pray and be faithful in the work, the church has a chance
Jeff: Years ago, when I had the strength and energy, I had the knowledge and wherewithal to help churches in the area of race relations. My credentials were a bachelor’s from a Black state university, a Master’s from another state university which included Black studies, and then 18 hrs. toward a Ph.D. which included the writing of a prospectus for a doctoral dissertation in Black History at an Ivy League University. Finally, I did my Doctor of Ministry Project on Christian Love & Race Relations (10 sermons on I Cors.13 and ten lectures in Black History, preceded and followed by testing to see if there was any change in the all white congregation. By the way my Moderate project director said, “You ought to have known better than to have selected a controversial project like this. If that church fires you, I will be right there behind them, supporting them.” In any case, I got the thing done, and it provided, in addition to my training and experience (taught history in a Black state university for two years), a background that would have enabled me to make a real contribution in this area of life. Unfortunately, the Moderates did not care to have Conservatives appearing on their programs (unless they were pre-approved, rubber stamped, and submissive fluffs). Then the Conservatives and they had no interest at all. After all, a man with a second marriage, well, there was surely something wrong with him. Besides, I had the audacity to advocate the original case of Sandy Creek Association for women in ministry, and that was a no, no. All I could do was pray, and I have done so for nearly 41 years. One of these days, likely beyond my life time, God will answer that prayer, and the power of Heaven shall descend and nations, perhaps the whole earth, will be converted in a single day. And I am not the only one so praying. Others have who are gone on before (Such as Spurgeon, D. M. Lloyd Jones, etc.). Their prayers surely have weight, with God’s help, to bring down the blessing like on the day of Pentecost.
William, it is indeed a challenge to intersect cultures and truly see them come together. We are different as people and cultures, and that is one of the things we must accept. However, we are also the same in far more ways. I surely don’t have all the answers. A lot of what we do is trial and error as so few pastors or even convention people have much experience in seeing these things truly occur. I don’t believe there is a formula for it, other than what scripture tells us. Pray without ceasing, love, work at the basics and have faith, that “with God all things are possible.” If it happens it will be all Him, and we would not have it any other way. We are blessed in one particular way. We’re right across the interstate from Ft. Jackson here in Columbia SC, and when this church was thriving 25 years ago and running 300-400, it was basically all military. Military folks, for the most part, who have had to serve next to any and everyone, have left behind many of the prejudices that still sadly exist in many churches. In fox holes color or nationality does not matter. Most of our older members are retired military. The few we had who resisted left the church after “all the little black kids showed up.” There was some turmoil caused for a season, and it hurt us, as it really quenched the Spirit. But when they left, so did the attitude, and since then, one by one, we’ve seen fruit. If we can stay out of His way, and remain faithful, I truly believe we’ll continue to see Him add to His church
James, I’m sorry about that. BTW, I’d be interested in speaking with you about such things. Always looking for perspective and ideas 🙂
William,
Like I recently said, “God has a tendency to move His people to local churches that are healthy and faithful in gospel ministry and discipleship and away from churches that aren’t.” That tendency is all the more reason to take seriously the process of revitalization and planting. We need as many healthy and faithful churches as possible!
Interesting article and discussion. I’ve pondered this for some time, and keep coming back to a simple equation that could probably help the SBC.
This works:
1. Make Disciples
2. Form local churches / expand local leadership
3. Make Disciples
4. Form a local churches / expand local leadership
5. Make Disciples
This is not as reliable:
1. Make churches with Pastors that will eventually leave
2. Form Disciples
3. Make churches with Pastors that will eventually leave
4. Form Disciples
5. Make churches with Pastors that will eventually leave
I have found the former to be much more reliable and builds a mature church body.
Chris,
Would you expand upon your comment? Particularly the part about pastors who eventually leave.
I too am not sure exactly what you mean, also what does expand local leadership mean?
Yes.. I am shifting around on planes from San Jose to Nashville… so be patient. More explanation may need to come later as well.
But to begin…..
1. It seems that Pastors or Interims that get loaded into the “making” of a church at the beginning seem to move on quickly with developing additional Pastors in the church; or it is not even an initiative to develop more Pastors in the local congregation. So, that’s were I prefer making Disciplines and then forming the church with the plan of developing more than only on Pastor. The church benefits from both directives, which line up with the Apostles way of “planting” churches.
2. So that,…when (usually not “if” in the SBC) the church continues to mature without much disruption. In fact, it builds a different and more mature DNA into the local body as they follow the Apostles lead in developing multiple and expanding Leadership with Pastoring (not simply the staff model).
sorry,… added an “a” in the first set… you get the point though.
meant to say “without developing”. Typing fast, getting on the Southwest cattle call 🙂
Thanks Chris.
William,
I really don’t think a revitalization of churches is the answer to keep them from closing. I don’t think any program will put a stop to what is happening in the churches.
I do however think I have the answer that will turn a church completely around. It’s called revival. The members of a local congregation have to learn to be in love with Jesus enough to get off their pews and make time to be a witness. Our lights should shine bright enough that people will see our good works and glorify our Heavenly Father. This answer is so simple that it passes right by most of our leaders unnoticed. The members have to be on fire, and only then will we see a turnaround.
…or, if I can be overly brusque in response: we can blame church closings on the unspiritual members who aren’t enough in love with Jesus, or, blame it on God for not sending revival.
If you’re a pastor, kindly explain how you brought revival to your church.
Nothing personal here…I’m being gently provocative for a reason.
William,
What I’m about to say really works well in an unhealthy church, or any small church. The best way to bring revival is for the pastor to make disciples out of just a few members in the beginning so they will feel and realize they are accomplishing something for the Lord, then begin increasing the number of disciples. The pastor must work with these disciples, and be with them on visitations, to reach out to the lost, hospital visits, and etc.
I have found out through experience most members will not take the leap on their own, but with the pastors help I have discovered that more folks are willing to become disciples than most pastors have dreamed of. The very first good thing that happens in the church, either someone gets saved or old members coming back, the disciples will say, I was part of that. My friend revival has broken out before your very eyes.
Several folks think that if a great evangelist to comes to their church that everything will turn around. That rarely happens, I can do without bi-annual revival meetings. The church has to know that the turnaround is up to them. Revival starts with getting close to God, and getting up out of the pews. Many times, it’s the other way around, get out of the pews and get close to God. If we do not put feet under our prayers they will not travel very far. To me, this is simple with a simple answer.
William, I am listening. So you might teach me there is a better way.
So, you already have a revitalization plan, aren’t waiting for revival, and take your pastoral responsibilities seriously. I like your plan.
I think I am seeing something here that bothers me. We have a serious problem. We are talking about books, programs, initiatives, training, materials, process and meetings. If these things would have converted the world SB would have done so a generation ago. These thing did not produce much in the past, why would we think it will make a difference now. I don’t think I have ever agreed with Jess on anything but he does have a point. We have a spiritual problem. It will require a spiritual answer.
In answer to William T (with whom I agree often) I say yes. I will not speak for others but, i am not as in love with Jesus as I should be. I get excited even mad when I argue my point on a blog. However i cannot remember the last time I wept over lost souls. My head is OK it is my heart that has the problem. While I will not speak for others I will say that I do not think I am alone.
I am not sure what the answer is but i am sure that it will start with a weeping over the lostness of those around us. I have more confidence in Prayer and God sending revival than i do in a study, book or an initiative.
I just love freedom of speech!!!
I was interested in this for two reasons, (1) experts predict a steep increase in Protestant church closings in the near future, and (2) the same experts seem to agree that church revitalization is very difficult and rarely successful.
I’m a rank neophyte on revitalization but am pleased to learn that it is a subject getting attention on the seminaries with course offerings and reading lists. It was unheard of (at least by me) 35 years ago when I was in seminary. And, while I am skeptical of many of the denominational revitalization programs, they seem like the same recycled and relabeled offerings I’ve been exposed to for decades in the pastorate, I like more of what I am seeing and hearing at the associational level. It looks to me like there is a movement of churches to larger associations which have more to offer the local church that the same old routine fellowship and meetings. I also like the awareness I am seeing among the younger pastors that they cannot afford to just maintain the church.
All that said, I’m guessing that SBC numbers will continue to decline due to low birth rates and other demographic along with geographic factors but that we will see some exciting areas of growth nonetheless.
I think the gazillion question assessment tool mentioned above will guarantee that the pastor of the church that uses it will be thrust into a major depression when he answers all those questions about the church for which he is the shepherd. Such reminds me of too many evangelism conferences where I was told how deficient my church and I were.
Will there be a successful SBC revitalization program? Probably not. The epitaph will read, “Killed by local church autonomy.”
William T
Elaborate please, on the last 5 words.
No church has to do anything. No church has to listen to anyone. No church can forced to change. No pastor has to do anything different.
William T
I see what you mean. We are free to be ineffective if we so chose. I would observe, however, that the churches that are not as autonomous don’t seem to be doing any better. Am I on track with that or not?
I haven’t seen any data comparing different polities. There are other factors involved so it might be impossible to compare.
We all understand that in SBC life nothing happens unless the local church chooses for it to. No DOM, revitalization expert, denominational employee imposes on that church. So, we create programs, train people, encourage and cajole and hope some churches take us up on the matter.
William T
Exactly right. That has added much to my frustration.
William T
I should probably state that I do believe in local. However it does have its problems.
If SB were organized like other denominations, I would be the guy that would send a pastor or relieve a pastor. Quite honest.y I am not sure i am smart or wise enough to have that responsibility. That is what I see as the problem with the high church polity. It leaves a lot of room for politics etc. That is not to say that we do not have our share of politics when it comes to selecting a pastor.
In addition, the lawless group consultation costs the church Thousands of dollars…
I’m a greedy capitalist pig myself but think that when state conventions, SBC entities, and associations offer church revitalization tools, assessments, and services the cost should be either nothing or nominal. This may be unrealistic and forgive my cynicism but I’m wondering why a denomination with a $500 million stream of regular Cooperative Program funding can explain to churches, much less to the Lord, that “We would have helped revitalize your church but you didn’t have the money.”
My association has a very attractive comprehensive revitalization program that costs churches nothing.
William T
Is that process in material form that can be shared, i.e. booklets, notebooks etc.
The major challenge facing these “dying churches” as well as even churches which are not is that the people in the pews are radically different from the secular populations they hope to reach for Christ. The churches are effective in reaching fellow Southern Baptists who are looking to “move their letter” from another church, but the problem is that isn’t enough to keep many churches going.
These are some of the differences the church has from the secular population it hopes to reach:
1. A different world view – e.g. secular folks see nothing wrong with gay marriage and see discrimination in opposing it. Also, they see nothing wrong with living with someone prior to marriage.
2. The secular population has doubts about the truthfulness of the Bible (a lot of this is due to higher education) and therefore are not going to be as responsive to Biblical claims.
3. The secular population is different socially from the typical congregation of an SBC or evangelical church. – Presently in the U.S., almost half of all adults are not married. In addition, the age for first marriage is now around 30 for males and a little less for than that for females. How many SBC Churches are even attempting to reach the 20 somethings who are single? Contrast that with an earlier blog post, here, where the title was “Everyone should get married by 21.” Also, throw in all of the divorced and remarried folks and again the churches are not reaching these groups who are so different from their own congregations.
The next questions I would ask are how many churches aren’t putting “all their eggs in one basket”, counting on the pastor’s sermon to reach the lost, but instead are using more long term methods of evangelism like the Alpha Course or a Starting Point class? And for SBC churches in the large metro areas of the south, how many of your congregation are non-southerners? In other words, if you are at Wednesday night prayer meeting and everyone has a southern accent, you aren’t reaching your community.
The evidence is clear that what has been practiced for the last 50 years isn’t working: in 2013, 60% of all SBC Churches did not baptize anyone under the age of 18 and 80% did not baptize anyone between the ages of 18 and 29.
What I am trying to say is that until churches realize that they are going to have to reach people who are radically different from themselves (and to be honest, people whom they are not naturally congenial with because the secular population has had such different life experiences), these churches will continue to die. The encouraging signs to me are the large mega churches which are drawing thousands and also, I see churches in some of the most secular parts of the country and are growing and having an impact on their communities (e.g. Grace Chapel in Boston, Venture Christian and Menlo Park Pres. in Silicon Valley and Willow Creek in Chicago).
David
I like the way you are honestly seeking to grapple with a very tough situation. You show a heart that is willing to be honest about what is transpiring in our churches. This type of honesty is the first major step toward finding solutions.
I would like to take issue with the word “radical”. I am not so sure that those outside the church are all that different. To be more precise, I should say that whatever the difference is between “us” and “them”, it has been the same for the past 4 or 5 decades.What I am saying is that we cannot blame our situation on the fact that they are so hard to reach. Lost people have always been hard to reach, yet there was a time when the church did a decent job in reaching those folks.
At the close of WW 2 the church and culture were on the same wave length, and the church prospered. It was a very “contemporary” church. The culture changed but the church did not. The issue is not that folks became so radically different. The church failed to be “contemporary” as society style changed. By that i mean we are still answering WW2 questions and concerns rather than the questions and concerns people are asking and having now
Now to be sure there are those who are radically different. However most people not in church are basely like those in the church in so far as concerns, needs, problems, ambitions, and questions are concerned. In short the church is viewed as not being in the need meeting business, maybe rightly so.
I am pretty familiar with NAMB’s SEND/NA but wasn’t aware that they had a revitalization component.
http://www.namb.net/revitalization/
Looks more like planting by relaunching than restoring to health. I’m all for either.
NP has a nice closing/relaunch story today:
http://m.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=42995