Why Are Churches of Christ Shrinking – James Nored
February 1, 2013 23 Comments
James Nored shares some really good insights on why he believes the Churches of Christ are in decline. He has over 11,000 view on this post in the last week so he is striking a nerve here. Take some time to go and read what he wrote there. It looks like he has more posts coming on this topic so tune in and check by later. The premise of his first post is that we value our Restoration roots so deeply that we haven’t really made the turn to stay culturally relevant. He says we are a left brained (linear, logical, modern) church in a left brained (more artsy, intuitive, less concrete) world. I think he makes some valid points there. That is one aspect of a larger and more complication issue. On the other hand, I wonder if we evaluate it all so much that the issue becomes more complicated than it really is. I am pretty sure James would say one of our problems, though, is the other extreme where local congregations haven’t always assessed their culture and figured out how to communicate the Gospel to them.
What is more he does something that few people who are offering critique do, he gives suggestions on how churches can address this and adapt. I really appreciate that. I think he has hit one aspect of the issue here really well and has more posts on the way. I have my own opinions as to why this is happening but I am not out to steal his thunder on this so I will leave it alone for now. This post is not here to generate a big discussion and take any focus off what he is saying…this post is more of a signpost pointing you over to James’ website as he often has many good and insightful thoughts to share as well as practical solutions. I would encourage you to subscribe to his site if those are things that interest you.
About mattdabbs
Matt, I read James’ blog and had a comment, but you have to join HIS network to leave a comment (talk about being open!) so I will comment here. It was just a coincidence, but yesterday I read and printed an article by Greg Laurie in ChurchLeaders.com entitled, “4 Dangerous Church Growth Myths.” The four myths are: If it brings people in, it pleases God; The less confrontive or overt the Gospel message, the better; Find out what your church is hungry for and feed it to them; and Target your church to a particular demographic. It is amazing, but James nailed all four of the myths. Get big, get splashy, it won’t work unless you have three jumbo screens and stadium seating, go for the 18-25 year old “right brained” experiential worshipper. His whole article was a journey into applied consumerism.
I even challenge his assumption that the churches who use these gimmicks are “growing.” They may be “stealing sheep” but are they “growing?” I subscribe to Christianity Today, and from the reports I read in that journal, virtually every “Christian” group is shrinking today from those that use hard rock worship bands to the most conservative Baptist groups.
It troubles me deeply when I read and hear leaders within the Churches of Christ wanting to apply bandages when when we need open heart surgery. Sure, re-build your auditorium and install three (or more!) mega screens and people will come in to be entertained – for a while – but what happens when THAT experience becomes stale? If you measure spiritual growth by numbers, and achieve large numbers with cheap theatrics, you will ALWAYS be grasping for the newest and latest in technology, “experience” and “what works today.” In other words, you will never be satisfied and you will always be living in fear of losing your flock to the church down the street that is just a little bit “edgier” than you are.
James’ suggestions might work for a very wealthy, very suburban, very young and very technologically savvy congregation – but only for a while. But what will they do when the sun comes up tomorrow?
Paul, you said everything that I was thinking so well. I would also add that Nored’s history tends towards the straw-man version of whichever elements he wants to critique. I think he makes some valid points about not being afraid to let emotion be part of how we worship God, and I agree. But you are quite correct that when all we focus on is the experiential aspects of worship, we are not necessarily addressing the bigger need, which I perceive to be the development of authentic relationships both with God and with other members of our congregation. I also feel like his first major point, “acknowledging we are shrinking,” is hardly big news. I don’t think I could count how many times I’ve heard this over the years from both conservatives and progressives among our numbers.
I wasn’t a huge fan of his first installment, but I liked his second one a lot. I think he means well, and at least he is provoking some good discussion.
I also refused to join his network just to leave a comment. Glad to see I wasn’t the only one!
To me, this discussion happened about 20 years ago, but most Churches of Christ are just now catching on. We’re always a few steps behind the broader evangelical culture which is a few steps behind the secular culture, so we’re always late to the party. This, I think, is one of the biggest reasons why we don’t keep our young people – we’re rarely relevant. I’m right in the middle of that target demographic (26 year old female) and have had discussions with my peers about where we see ourselves making a faith home for ourselves. We left the conservative ones of our youth and moved to ones that would certainly be labeled progressive (or ecumenical, to borrow Richard Beck’s terminology).
I agree with your thesis that we, as a generation, enjoy an experience over a lecture but we also crave substance. Don’t forget the knife cuts both ways – we’ve grown up in a technological age so we aren’t fooled by lights and pretty graphics on screen. Technology is just a tool, so if at the end of the day we’re still troubled by the theology we encounter, it won’t make a bit of a difference. We’re exploring our theology and we’re amazed at how much is out in the world that we never knew about in our sheltered Church of Christ bubble! We’re reading blogs and books and having discussions over coffee and questioning and praying and we can feel the Spirit moving among us! And none of it had anything to do with lights or projectors – most of it didn’t happen in a church building at all! And then, when we brought our newfound discoveries to the churches of our youth, so eager to share, we were met with disapproval. The message was clear – questioning the status quo is unwelcome.
The Churches of Christ have traditionally been resistant to change and fearful – even angry – at people who ask questions and dare to wonder if perhaps we have been wrong. This is why my generation leaves; we don’t think there is a place for us.
So, by all means, use technology! It can be a great tool – but don’t expect it to be what keeps my generation hanging around.
Lindsey, I am not able to respond to your comment right now but will by Monday. I think much of what you have said here resonates with many your age. We talk about being the church in Acts and our young people are mature and serious enough about their faith to actually read acts and then wonder why we aren’t more like what we read there.
I will get back with you on this. In the meantime I would love to hear more from 18-28 year olds on this topic.
Thanks! To be fair, I don’t think this is a problem specific to Churches of Christ. I would imagine any denomination would encounter the same problem. But Churches of Christ seem to struggle more in this area. I’m inclined to think that a lot of it goes back to the traditional method of interpreting the bible (command, example, necessary inference) in our circles, which I believe is woefully inadequate.
I’m very interested to see how the Churches of Christ evolve over time. I think there’s a lot of us who are invested in them because it’s the place of our spiritual formation and want to remain with our heritage. That said, we’re probably the least denominationally loyal age group. Passion and community matters most to us and we’ll go wherever we can find it, regardless of the name on the sign out front.
Amen. There is so much to be read on blogs now that is legitimate, and I am glad for it. I think the older people would drop bricks if they read some of the blog postings. OR they would appreciate that we had the guts to say things that their upbringing taught them not to mention. They might realize just why young people are disgruntled and leaving. I am also glad for sites like this which seem to be the only place where concerns can be expressed, topics debated, and questions answered without repercussion. (It sure wasn’t in Bible class at Harding.) The younger generations in the CofC want more substantive answers than they have been given in the past.
Hey guys. Thanks for your thoughts. Just a note. If people were not required to sign up for the website, then the site would be tons of spam. And even then, I have to decline about 20 spam, “fake” members. I have tried to make it easier for people to join by making it where people can use Facebook to join.
I am not sure what my “history” is. The irony of this post going viral is that I almost never post on assembly issues. I am a “Missional Outreach” guy, and I still absolutely believe in the importance of going out and serving in the world. But I still think that we have to learn to speak the language of our culture. As I say in the article, this does not mean that it is the only thing that we need to do or all of the solution.
One piece of this is our difficulty in dealing with change and balancing change with enough tradition and continuity to give individuals enough reason to stay in Churches of Christ. On the one hand countless Churches of Christ simply cannot process even innocuous changes and expend their life energy in the trench warfare of the change wars. But on the other hand progressive Churches of Christ rarely remain healthy and growing for more than a generation if that. The children of Church of Christ progressives generally go to other fellowships by their 20′s or 30′s. I don’t know that there is any solution. Churches of Christ may be a passing phenomenon in the wider scheme of church history. I am thankful for the promise of I Corinthians 15:58 that our labor in the Lord is not in vain.
I am hopeful. There is a lot I want to say in response but am on my phone right now. I will try to respond more tomorrow. Thanks for your comment.
Another question that I would like to see discussed is, (and I am not trying to be antagonistic here), “why are we so infatuated with youth?” In congregations who make the shift to a far more “progressive” worship style (something James Nored is suggesting) there are always many who leave who are middle aged or elderly. No one wrings their hands and says, “What about our seniors?” The most they receive is a passing, “Well, we are better off without them.” But if any young families leave or young singles leave we act as if the roof is falling in and there will be no tomorrow.
I know of a congregation that once was over 1,100 members in attendance that now has about a third that number. They have become increasingly “progressive” and the numbers just keep getting smaller.
If you attempt to cover up theology that is fundamentally conservative with a “progressive” worship veneer, what have you actually accomplished? And, if you change the theology, can a congregation truly claim to remain within the fellowship that is a biblicist movement? And if a congregation does not know what it believes and is constantly changing to adapt to the next “biggest thing,” why stay? The emotional whiplash is just too much.
I agree with the comment above – in “progressive” congregations the young people ultimately leave anyway. I attribute it to the “White Men Can’t Jump” theory. You can only change a congregation of the Churches of Christ so far before they no longer are a church of Christ, and if you make that change, why not be a part of a church that does instrumental music, praise teams, liturgical dance, and other forms of “experiential worship” at so much of a higher quality?
BTW – I have a six year old daughter, so these are not theoretical questions for me. I want her to find her faith and be able to grow and serve in a faithful congregation of Jesus’ church.
Thanks again for the discussion.
Paul
Paul,
I intended to address these things in a far more significant way in the coming weeks. I have written about this pretty extensively here in the past – https://mattdabbs.wordpress.com/ministry-tools/20s-30s-ministry/
What bothers me the most is we think technique trumps everything. If only we do this right or that right…if only we wiggle our finger while we tug on our ear, and pat our belly while we rub our head…then this or that will finally happen right! Technique is not the end all be all solution to all of our problems. Technique will constantly change, as will our ability to measure up to those techniques or trying to “compete” against what is going on at the mega church down the street. That is a consumer mentality that will result in failure.
What is we connected with our young people like we used to do way back in the day, before all the age segregation? What if they knew we loved them, because we spent time with them, mentored them, and actually knew and loved them? It is hard to leave a group you know loves you dearly. It is easy to leave a group you aren’t connected with in the first place.
I have MUCH more to say, but let me start with that. You know what is crazy? We had some megachurch guys ask us how on earth we pull off intergenerational small group ministry. We didn’t have an answer because we never did it any other way. They broke all their groups up by age, realized how poorly it was working and wanted to get back but had invested so much time, staff, etc into their new approach they couldn’t see a way out. We looked cutting edge to them! Funny how that works.
“What is [if?] we connected with our young people like we used to do way back in the day, before all the age segregation? What if they knew we loved them, because we spent time with them, mentored them, and actually knew and loved them? It is hard to leave a group you know loves you dearly. It is easy to leave a group you aren’t connected with in the first place.”
Exactly! Well said!
And I love the example you gave in the next paragraph. Funny how we can be cutting edge and never know it. I feel the same way about some people “discovering” acapella music. Hey guys, we’ve been here for years! Ditto with baptism. Stay around long enough and all of a sudden you are radical thinkers!
Paul
Churches of Christ are shrinking because American Christians have become complacent in teaching other complacent and smug Americans who see no need for God. Dimming the lights, having rodeos and three ring circuses won’t help but might bring in those who need amusement. I grew up in the denominational world in a religious group that entertained to get numbers . Today that group is almost non-existent. Worship is what God has commanded to be done directed to Him. We need to do a better job teaching all Christians. If you had grown up in a denominational world like I did, having found the Truth, you wouldnt want to go back.
Ralph,
The typical Church of Christ teaches and teaches and teaches and teaches and is in decline. We teach in Sunday Bible class, Sunday in the sermon, Sunday night, Wednesday night, Tuesday morning ladies class, and on and on we teach. And yet we are in decline. Just like more powerpoint doesn’t guarantee success, more teaching doesn’t either. There is an intersection of what both of you are saying here and that is this – we have to make our teaching relevant and engage people with the Gospel, the mission, etc. In order to do that we do need to understand culture and understand how people learn and present that same Gospel to them in ways that connect. That doesn’t mean you have to have a rodeo. That is hyperbole, I understand, but you know that is not what James is saying.
Second, have you heard James preach? Are you saying he doesn’t preach biblically?
Ralph, do you really think that I am advocating “rodeos and three ring circuses”? That I am against truth? Is that really what you think that I said, or are you just using provocative rhetoric? If you look at what I say, I indicate that we should in no way water down the message or preach fluff. But it is foolish to not speak the language of the people that we are trying to reach as we share the gospel message. Are you against all forms of technology, or just the ones that are current? Do you realize that people used to rail against padded pews, air conditioning, and microphones? Are you against these too? People are usually supportive of the communication methods that they grew up with, and think that ones that come along later are unnecessary, showy, entertainment.
To communicate in the language of your people is not “entertainment”. It is being incarnational. And what I highlight in this one post is not the only reason why we are shrinking. But it is definitely one of the reasons.
Paul contextualized in Acts 17 and in doing so converted the poetic words of pagans into inspired writing of the NT. We don’t have the authority to do that today but there is a principle in there about contextualization that we need to take seriously, that is, if you take Paul and his approach seriously you will!
James, I think you totally missed the point of Ralph’s comment. In your article you specifically mentioned having multiple screens to project multiple images during the sermon. Why? Is it because people cannot focus on the message without multiple images? Or is it because multiple images portrayed during a sermon tend to distract, and therefore entertain? I think Ralph’s point is very much on target – if “new technology” and multiple screens and fancy PowerPoint presentations were the answer then the most technological savvy churches/congregations would be growing by leaps and bounds – and they are not.
You said that “to communicate in the language of your people” is being “incarnational.” You cannot be serious. The incarnation was the invisible God coming in human flesh – bringing deity into the form of humanity. Paul said it was the most profound mystery God ever revealed to man. Using multiple screens, incorporating video, even using PowerPoint is simply shifting communication forms. It drives me crazy when people use provocative and theologically rich terms like the incarnation to justify using incense or bells or multiple projector screens. If you think that such shifts in communication are the answer to our shrinking numbers then by all means make your case, but please, do not try to make your case using terms that are manifestly NOT the equivalent to what you are suggesting.
I think you need to re-read Ralph’s comment and consider it. He is speaking from his heart and his experience, and you dismissed him as a knee-jerk reactionary. Perhaps your language reveals your attitude toward those who are resistant to your agenda? It is at least worth considering.
Not all churches/ministers/elders are capable of understanding and relating to all generations. I will say that it is a hard thing to do. I have never heard of ministers asking for input, new ideas, and whether or not a particular topic would reach certain people. I am not advocating for changing the tenets of the faith, but merely determining what the congregation needs to hear and then discussing it in a way they can understand. Churches are like businesses, some get it right and some don’t. Jesus could relate to most people; we need to go back and study that approach. That said, a good speaker can accomplish a lot with a well-thought 10 minute homily. Stop making the sermon the focus of the worship. No one likes jumping between different books of the NT and the pause for people to find the verse to read along with it. Use a short homily to reinforce the portion of gospel read right before and provide relevant examples. I go to PowerPoint seminars all the time and have taught off slides but still don’t like them. One image or slide is fine but just text on slides is a pain. The old style Episcopalians don’t use it at all. The service is either on a handout or in the prayer book and known by many in attendance as it rarely varies. (Don’t attack me, the C of C’s prayerbook may not be written but we all know it by heart.)
Paul, I did not specifically mention having “a rodeo and three ring circuses.” And an essential part of incarnation and mission is speaking the language of the people that we are trying to reach. Yes, I am serious, and any missiologist will say the same. Someone can pick out some individual item and blow it out of proportion and criticize it. Like saying that air conditioning and microphones are the key to the gospel spreading. It is not–but someone might suggest that in North America in the 21st century, these might be helpful.
Again, someone can take a small, practical suggestion and make it into a rodeo and circus and ignore the context and everything else that I have said. Really, if you only knew, I almost never write on these issues. I am a “missional outreach” guy. I spend endless hours studying with people, sharing the gospel in groups and one on one, helping members discover their gifts and start ministries that reach out to the community. Right now, I am helping some of our members get a community garden for the poor in our neighborhood and ministry to women who have been involved in sex trafficking. Go through and read my other blog posts. Talk to the churches that I have ministered in. It is ironic that these posts, out of everything I have written, have gone viral.
But I have heard from all kinds of people, including numerous ex-Church of Christ members, who have said that this post described their reality and that the things talked about in the post–being a left-brained fellowship in a right-brained world–one of the major reasons that they left. Hey, I don’t have all of the answers. But unlike some who just deconstruct everything, I am trying to offer some practical things that, in their cumulative, may help those that feel that we do not speak their language. And from the response and the stats, that appears to be a lot of people who fall into that category.
Kurt Fredrickson, my D.Min. director at Fuller, likes to say, “Everything we do is theological.” And how we communicate also affects the message that we communicate, and therefore is eminently theological.
In the book, Outspoken: Conversations on Church Communication by Mancini and Leonard Sweet and others, Jimmy Sexton writes an introduction that I believe articulates well part of what I am writing about:
———————————————————————————————————————
Media Is Preaching / Jeremy Sexton There is a common misconception that preaching is something that happens only from behind a pulpit on the weekend. This is narrow-minded. Who says that is the only way the gospel can be communicated?
Tradition may say so, but even the most set-in-our-ways among us have shaken off this notion unknowingly . . . Every time you communicate anything in any medium as a church, it is preaching. I’m not suggesting you start tweeting, “God reads knee-mail,” from your church’s account. What I am suggesting is that no matter what you’re saying, it is a sermon being preached.
When you inform your community of a free outreach with no strings attached, you preach of God’s generosity. When you painstakingly craft a design for a sermon series, you preach of God’s beauty and preach the content to visual learners in a way a sermon would not speak to them. When you package a video of someone’s testimony, you are preaching of God’s redemption. It is all preaching.
You should feel encouraged by this. What you’re doing is important. It is very important. You may feel that you toil in vain. You might want to quit. You may feel that you are putting in late nights and long hours for no reason because, “who cares about a stupid sermon graphic anyway?” Nothing could be further from the truth. You are preaching the gospel. The question we must ask ourselves, then, is whether or not we are treating what we do with the level of reverence that it deserves. We would be appalled to learn that our pastor had thrown a sermon together at the last minute without seeking the face of our Father. How many times have we done this with our work in media, design or communication?
———————————————————————————————————————-
My hope is that we can be much more effective in our message–and communicate a more holistic gospel–and therefore impact and reach more people for Christ.
James, again, I believe you missed the point of Ralph’s comment and my defense of it. Ralph shared something from his past that was very important to him – his movement out of an “entertainment oriented” service to what he felt was a more worshipful attitude. You attacked him in terms that I felt like stigmatized him as being a knee-jerk reactionary. Yes he used hyperbole – we all do. Was it over expressive? Maybe – but as the author of the first piece you should have at least listened to what he had to say.
And I still object to your over-inflation of the word “incarnational.” What you are talking about is simply changing, or adding to, communication styles. There is nothing about a video screen that communicates the reality of the Creator God being revealed in the flesh of Jesus Christ. This kind of postmodern language distortion is mangling the message of the cross. At some point we have to back up and ask ourselves what we are really saying when we use such terms.
I have no doubts about your ministry. I have never attacked your ministry. I trust you are doing all kinds of good things in your ministry. But I can say that I thought your blog post that attracted so much attention was way off base. It was purely “seeker sensitive” and could have been written by Bill Hybels or some other mega-church guru. That approach has been exposed as having serious theological and practical failings. So people are leaving the church because of a right-brain/left brain issue? Really? I never in a thousand years knew that Jesus’ sacrifice had anything to do with a hemisphere of my brain.
I have read many of the same source materials that you have. I am aware of the same surveys and studies about church growth/stagnation. You have come to one conclusion, and I think I have come to different one. We are both interested in the growth of the kingdom, and I think we should support each other where we see common ground.
But, really, you seem to be very sensitive to the charge of creating a “three ring circus.” I think you need to go back to Ralph’s comment and search to find why you are so pricked by what he said. Maybe God is trying to speak to you through Ralph. At least you should have the capability of hearing what Ralph was trying to say without being so defensive. Or, maybe his comment hit a little too close to home??
Blessings on your work.
Paul
Paul, I feel that language is very important in general, and to use language in this way to dismiss something is not helpful to the discussion. There are endless studies that show the shaping effects of the mediums that we use, and that different mediums can impact the mind, or the heart/will, or the emotion. A well told story–or video, which is the story form of today–is far more likely to move people holistically, with heart, mind, and emotion–than a proof text. Why did a man turn himself into the police for murdering someone after watching The Passion of the Christ? Why was The Bible the highest rated cable series? Why did Jesus speak in stories and parables? He preached nothing like the Aristotlean philosophers of his day. How we communicate the gospel is important, and this is not just in worship assemblies. And yes, I guess we just disagree about the importance of speaking the language of the people and using their mediums in being incarnational.
We can deny that these affect people or make a difference. But in addition to the studies, hundreds of people have told me that they do. So for me, if it helps one person hear the gospel and be impacted by it, I want to help them by speaking their language and using their medium. Others think that, despite what our people who have left say, that this is not important. To me, this is to ignore reality and to continue to miss a whole generation. I could quote from those who have reached out to me to say that this right-brain, left-brain divide–which is another way to speak of the heart, mind, and soul aspects of our being–is indeed a big part of why they have left. I want to listen to this and help everyone and not deny the reality of what people are telling me. But others clearly have come to different conclusions and believe that these things are not important. This saddens me, as I do think that we are missing ways to connect with people. But I will accept that others have come to different conclusions. There are other things that we can do to support one another, as you say, and I hope that those who see these things differently can seek to find this common ground.
James,
I agree with what you are saying here. I would be very curious as to what the demographic is where Paul and Ralph are. It may well be that they have an older audience who is not as engaged by these sorts of things. So maybe that works for them for now. At the same time it is important that we understand what is effective and why. What reaches into someone’s heart and what doesn’t and why. You are doing more than just talking about this, you are engaging in this and have seen a real and obvious impact on the lives of those around you. I commend you for that. That doesn’t mean, of course, that Paul and Ralph are completely ineffective if they choose not to use those mediums. I have seen churches that had all the latest technology that were shrinking instead of growing. As you have probably said before, we can’t expect technology to replace the Gospel but it certainly can assist in helping communicate it.
James, it frustrates me that we appear to be talking past each other here. I agree with you that language is important, that stories communicate profoundly, and that the younger generation is far more visually oriented than previous generations. What I am objecting to is this concept that somehow or another I have to have three huge multi-image projection screens in my auditorium in order to reach these younger people. That is simply insulting to the intelligence and the faith of many, many young people.
You are in a very affluent situation. The people you talk to are no doubt very technologically savvy. Having three screens with continually changing images may speak to them. If so, well and good. But I can speak to thousands of situations in this country alone where that situation would be horribly off-putting. it would be distracting. It would be the very opposite of what you are trying to accomplish.
And I simply do not accept that, even in today’s visually oriented culture, the spoken word is unable to connect. Why is Rush Limbaugh the highest rated radio show today? He has no visual images. He cannot project anything other than his voice. And millions of people tune in to hear his broadcast – either in part or in total. And don’t argue that his audience is mainly older people – I was introduced to Limbaugh by someone in the exact age demographic that you reference as a part of this right brain/left brain divide.
And, to answer Matt’s question – I am currently serving as a campus minister on a state funded university. I deal every day with 18-22 year olds, and I just based on my informal “gut feeling” I would suggest that a majority, but certainly not a overwhelming majority, of the young people I deal with would agree with you completely. But a large and largely ignored segment would consider your multiple screen auditorium to be a condescending manipulation of their emotions and a clever way to obscure serious theology. Yes this generation loves story and metaphor and seeing how all things are interconnected. But they can spot manipulation from a mile away – and will avoid it at all costs.
A couple of Sunday nights ago I had a conversation with a university sophomore who was incensed that her generation is a group of narcissistic crybabies who want everything handed to them on a silver platter and who refuse to put forth any effort to see any deeper meaning in life than their next “hook-up” and who is posting what on FaceBook. She may be in the minority, yes. But how can I ignore her voice?
If I could put my objection in one simple sentence it would be this – You are painting with entirely too large of a brush, and a brush that is primarily designed to address an urban and affluent audience. As I said – you are no doubt having great results in your demographic. But, please, understand and respect that there are many other opinions and values not only in the church but in the society at large.
If that makes me a knuckle-dragging troglodyte then I guess I will wear name. I’ve already admitted to being such. My opinions are in the minority. But that does not make them invalid or unimportant.