Is the number of members in churches of Christ shrinking? That I cannot really deny. I’ve read a lot of the research that you probably have about certain demographics that are really suffering, perhaps none more than the group comprised of those 18-35 years old (millenials). There has been a lot of speculation in recent years (and particularly in recent days thanks to some articles circulating through social media) about why that is the case and what we can do to stem the tide of departures.
Most of these “solutions” are rooted in the idea that we drastically change the way that we “do Christianity.” If only we would soften our message, dim our lights, invoke more emotion, redesign our worship to be more entertaining – then maybe people will generally be more accepting of Christianity. These changes could be inconsequential – matters that really do not pertain to heaven or hell. There are a lot of traditions that can, and probably should, be changed from time to time. However, most often these church growth “experts” have in mind changing things that have much more eternal implications. Take away congregational singing, add some instruments, stop talking about sin so much – do whatever is necessary to make Christianity more tolerable. Then maybe our young Christians in particular may quit leaving.
I am not presumptuous enough to assume that I have the absolute answer to this question, but from everything that I have read from the “gurus” and what I have experienced both as a Christian and a preacher is that people are leaving churches of Christ for denominations more for one reason than any other – because they don’t know the difference anymore. We have spent at least one generation trying to emulate everything in the world some denominations are doing in hopes of stemming the tide, but realistically the more we become like denominations the less reason people have for not just jumping ship and leaving the church for a denomination all together. When the line is blurred people don’t have as much of a problem in crossing over.
The blame behind this is multi-directional. Preachers and elders aren’t making public distinctions between true Christianity and denominations as much anymore. Parents are allowing their children to visit denominations with their friends, or they take them themselves and are satisfied that at least they’re “in a pew.” There are so many Christians who not only fail to realize the unique nature of the church but are actually defiant to it. The assumption is that to claim the church’s peculiarity is to essentially tell everyone around us that “we are better than them.” To declare the unique nature of the church is confrontational in a society that is very much against religious confrontations.
But did Jesus come to establish one church (Matthew 16:18)? Can that church be clearly identified based on scriptural qualities (Isaiah 2:2-3; Daniel 2:44; Joel 2:28-32; Acts 2)? Is that church to be uniquely different from the world and the world religious that surround it (1 Peter 2:9)? If so then we need to continue educating (yes, that’s still part of what the church is supposed to do – 1 Timothy 4:6) people about the distinctions that reside between the two and why the principles of denominationalism should still be rejected.
Hosea wrote long ago that the fundamental problem behind Israel’s demise before God was their “lack of knowledge” (Hosea 4:6). While that might not be the only issue plaguing the church today, it is one with which we still struggle mightily. The church isn’t just about experience and emotion (though I wouldn’t completely exclude them from the equation) – we must still be about educating ourselves and others in the word of God that is still able to teach us, reprove us, correct us, and perfect us (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
Let’s quit filling our Bible class hours with fluff material that coddles instead of challenges. Let’s quit filling our pulpits with anecdotes and clever word plays for the sake of showmanship. Let’s quit allowing the world to teach our own children more than we do. Let’s quit assuming that people can’t handle the truth anymore. If the gospel is still God’s power unto salvation (and it is – Romans 1:16) then it and it alone should continue to guide us in all we do and make us all that we are. And until we restore ourselves to that point once again, though the church Jesus built will never die (Matthew 16:18), it may continue to shrink in number – and the fault will entirely be ours’.
-Andy Brewer
Amen! I couldn’t agree more. In addition to the knowledge of God’s plan for his Church, we need to fully understand that we show God our love and appreciation for him by executing the plan that he has given us. We demonstrate our faith in him by trusting his plan. When we “decide” what God wants from us, instead of following his directions, it shows that we put more faith in ourselves then we put in God – and that we value what we think God wants over what he has explicitly told us in his word. We show our thankfulness and gratitude for the salvation that God has made available to us by fully submitting to his plan. In all avenues of our life we must put God’s plan first – in the way we live, the way we raise our family’s and the way we worship him.
Most of these responses as to why the churches of Christ are shrinking boil down to one response: “We need to get back to basics. And by ‘basics’, we need more fundamentalist teachings, because that seemed to work 50 years ago.”
That’s pretty much how I read all of these, including yours. You won’t be the first to write this, and you won’t be the last.
Here are the three things that are causing young people to leave the churches of Christ:
1. The churches of Christ insist that Earth is less than 10,000 year old despite four major areas of science (Biology, Geology, Astronomy, and Anthropology) independently confirm that Earth is many times older. The evidence is so overwhelming in favor of an old Earth that people are leaving the church rather than be associated with this silliness.
2. The churches of Christ maintain that an individual’s sexual orientation is a choice and that choice can be incorrect. While we don’t know the true cause of sexual orientation, most of our evidence leans towards sexual orientation being something more innate. Many members of the church of Christ have openly gay friends and relatives or are gay themselves. These members are more likely to leave the church if the church forces a family matter where none is needed.
3. Young folks, since the days of Plato and probably before, have asked difficult questions. What’s different is now is that everything said from the pulpit can be crosschecked in real time from a young person’s Internet-enabled phone. Gone are the days when a preacher could share stories based on bad science or irrational fear without the congregants knowing that it was all made up. The Internet has also brought an open atheism to the forefront. If a child asked the preacher a hard question, the preacher would give an answer and the child would just dwell on it. Now the child is dwelling on the answer with the help of Christian thinker William Lane Craig and atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss on YouTube. The preacher used to be the final authority on these matters, but now he’s just a stepping stone to a much deeper argument on god. Sometimes the arguments will leave a child wanting more that the church is willing to provide.
Here are three things I would like to see in the future church of Christ:
1. Drop the insistence on Creationism. Creationism is one of the reasons people are leaving.
2. Love everyone. Find the dignity in everyone. Respect everyone. When church of Christ preachers claim that homosexuals can and should change, that doesn’t acknowledge the dignity of that person. When elderships kick out whole families for loving their homosexual child, that’s just mean and those churches deserve to lose members.
3. Acknowledge that there are many perspectives on the divine. We have one and we are open to ideas on your perspective on the divine. New members are still welcome at the church of Christs regardless of their understanding of the Bible or God.
Your friend, James Church.
Hey James. Thanks for your response. I agree that we live in an age in which young people are able to gather data and examine evidence more so than ever before. But truth has nothing to fear in examination. The problem is that the sources that they assume are authoritative are feeding them bad information. You mock those of us who hold to creationism because you believe it is anti-science. Yet It is amazing to me to see the number of reputable scientists (and not just reputable among creationists) who are taking a step back from arguing for Darwinian evolution and leaning more toward some type of special creation (I’m not saying they believe in Genesis 1, but the difficulties they find with evolution are causing many to jump ship from the hard-line evolutionary viewpoint they once held). That is because evolution does not even meet with some of the most basic laws of science. Yet, for fear of being openly mocked by skeptics, people accept atheism and evolution for fear of castigation by society.
My biggest disagreement with most everything you’ve mentioned, James, is that for the church of Christ to follow you’re advice we would have to compromise the fundamental teaching of the Bible. We would have to reject Genesis 1-2 (among other passages) which would be to by default reject God. We would have to reject God’s authority and His definition of what is sin and what isn’t (like homosexuality – and please don’t rely on mocking OT passages to justify your position as you know we are no longer subject to the OT law [Galatians 3:15-25] – please read Romans 1:18-32 which applies to us all today).
If we were to willingly compromise in these points then yes we might retain certain people and we might even attract new ones. But what good would it do us. We would cease to be the church (the “called out ones”) and would just be another worldly religion compromising with the world to be accepted by the world.
Don’t get we wrong. I would like to see every soul under heaven be Christians and thus members of the church. But we cannot do it on our terms, which seems to be what you are advocating. We have to do it on God’s terms. If not, we can call ourselves the church of Christ but we will realistically be anything but that.
Thanks for your input and I hope that my response will be received with the same heart with which I read yours.
One of my friends shared your article. This was my response to her. I did not grow up in the CofC, but learned about them when I was 18, went to a CofC college, and was a member of a CofC later. I am now a member of a Christian church. Please take no offense as to what I’ve said. It’s just a view from one who has (and currently is) on the outside of the CofC. Thanks!
After reading that article, here’s my take on it. You know my background…
Coming in to the CofC from an outside denomination, one of the things that I absolutely loved about the church was that they were so biblically knowledgeable. I never had a question that could not be answered with scripture. I had never found that in a church. It was refreshing.
With that said, and maybe I am naive about CofC issues, there are a lot of things that are apparent to me about why the church might be struggling. The article was good in some respects. I will NEVER think that “dummying” down the message of Christ is the answer to any churches problem. This is why many churches are revolving doors these days. “Let’s get them saved, and they can figure things out from there.” I do, however, want to address some issues within the article that the author may have unknowingly pointed given an answer to.
The glaring issue to me that I’ve seen is one that has been argued for ages within the CofC, and stems down from older generations within the church. Many CofC members insist that you can only be a Christian if you are a part of the CofC. Thankfully this is not something that I learned when I first became involved with the CofC, but learned down the road. This is what gives other people the notion that the CofC has the opinion that they are better than everyone else. Please understand, as you read this, that I have a deep love for the CofC. Every church has it’s faults, and could be addressed the same way. When people within the CofC insist that only CofC members are true Christians, it goes against everything that Christ taught about. The reason I am addressing this issue so strongly is because the author of the article definitely came off this way. As I believe that there should be unity among Christians, and one unified Christian church is something to be sought after, I do not believe that the CofC should make the claim that they ARE that church. In doing so, they become like Peter before his vision in Acts 10. They become like the Jews who said that Greeks must become like them, and follow their ways before they were TRULY Christians.
As I believe that a strong involvement with the body of Christ is of utmost importance, I do not believe that it is a requirement to be a Christian. It will be detrimental to a person if they are not involved with the church body after they are immersed in Christ, but it is still not a requirement.
After learning about the CofC over the years, I have come to refer to the church as the “non-denominational denomination.” They may be autonomous, and may not have the districts, and hierarchy, but ask yourself this question: When you are out of town on a Sunday, in a town that you don’t know, what church do you look to attend, and are you willing to attend a church that isn’t CofC? I believe that most CofC members would answer the same way, and this to me constitutes the CofC being a denomination in it’s own right.
The author’s differentiation between the CofC and other “denominations” is what is alienating the CofC. Instead of wanting to work with other churches, the CofC stays on it’s own little island. It assumes that there are no other churches out there who stands on the same pillars that it stands on…and it is wrong. It is my opinion that the CofC has tried to justify many of it’s traditions with scripture. Honestly, most churches do. But I believe the CofC has used this ideal to the extreme as a reason to seperate itself from everyone else.
Josh, thank you for your reply. Your thoughts cut to the very premise of this article which is that people are leaving the church of Christ for denominations because people do not know the difference between the church and denominations.
I understand that from your perspective, at least what I got out of what you wrote, that the church of Christ elevates itself by claiming it is the best denomination among all of the denominations that exist and that we are teaching that people should leave their denominations and join “our denomination.” I assure you that if that is what we believe or taught then we would have a pride issue and have no Biblical basis on which to stand.
The problem with that perspective is that it misrepresents our true position. We believe that the Bible teaches God established one church (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 4:4) and wants all of mankind to be unified in that one church by believing, teaching, and practicing the same. Anything outside of that original church Jesus purchased with His blood in the first century is a denomination because it has divided itself away from the original body of Christ. So we are not claiming that the church of Christ is the best denomination among all denominations – we claim that the true church is not a denomination and that there should be no denominations. We also are not claiming that people should leave their denominations and join “our denomination.” We are pleading people to leave denominations altogether and just be Christians.
The oneness of the church is a fundamental teaching of the New Testament and to abandon it is to abandon New Testament Christianity all together. I hope that this brief explanation clears up any misconceptions in your mind about what the Bible teaches regarding this essential area. It is a matter of eternal importance.
Thank you for reading and I hope that you will continue to search for truth throughout your life, as will I.
It all comes down to one simple concept – authority. If God exists (and I know he does) and if the Bible is God’s Word — His revealed will to mankind, then what makes man think he has any right to change any part of it. I was educated as a scientist — a biologist to be exact. The evidence of creation far outweighs the theories of evolution and an ancient earth. True science — facts, not theories — prove this. This is just one aspect that seems to be under discussion here but the principle can be applied to all of God’s Word. God has revealed His will to us through the Bible. We have no authority to do anything against that will.
With that said, let’s look at the New Testament and the church we find there. We see that Jesus himself said that if one loves Him they will KEEP His commandments. Which one can we break and still love Him? The obvious and logical answer is NONE. When we carefully examine the New Testament, we see a church — one church or one body — with Christ as the head — in other words, HE IS THE BOSS — What He says goes.
Now about this church….. Was the church of the New Testament the true church? There is but one logical conclusion — it was. If it was the true church, did it have certain characteristics? Again, only one logical answer — yes. Can we duplicate that church today? Logically the answer is yes. The question then is how? The old saying, “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck — then it is a DUCK!” Simple logic! Apply this to the churches of today — if a church (any church) does not meet the characteristics of the New Testament church, then it cannot be a church suitable to God. This is obvious by the letters written by Paul, Peter, John, Jude, etc. making corrections (by inspiration) to the churches. If it did not matter if they varied from the pattern God set forth, WHY CORRECT THEM?
The simple, pure logic answer is that IT DOES MATTER! If it is going to be a church acceptable to God, it MUST exhibit the proper characteristics. If it does not, it will, as those congregations listed in Revelation, have its candlestick removed!
I was not raised in the church. I was raised in a denomination — Presbyterian — to be exact. I later was a Baptist. Before I ever heard of the church of Christ, I realized that neither of these churches met the scriptural qualifications to be acceptable. I set out to prove to my wife (the daughter of a preacher) that the church was just another denomination. With honest study — I FOUND THE SCRIPTURAL CHURCH!
Is it the way I would have made it? No, because I am human and like certain sinful ways. Those that would change the church want to do so because they like the “freedom” to partake of certain (maybe little in their eyes) sins that the church will not hold against them. This gives them a warm fuzzy feeling of security that they are still OK as far as going to heaven. Seems like I remember reading something about a narrow and strait gate….. hmmmm. There was also a wide gate that gave that warm fuzzy feeling. Now where did that one lead? Oh yes, to destruction.
Whether we like it or not, GOD IS THE BOSS and what he says goes. That makes it simple. Obey God and be a part of HIS church which is the bride of Christ — and yes there is only one bride mentioned in scripture — and end up in HEAVEN. Otherwise, do what you wish in the name of religion and join those that said on the day of judgement — “Did we not do all this in your name?” And he said, “Depart, I never knew you!!”
Great thoughts Mark. There is really nothing more I could add to that other than “Amen!”
Very good reply Mark. Hopefully I can reply in a little more length later. I do have a couple of questions right now though. If people leave a denomination, where would you suggest they attend? Would you be okay with people attending other non-denominational churches, and would you consider such churches non-denominational?
Thank you Josh. I will try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.
First, we have to understand a bit of church history. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus himself said “I will build my church”. This was his — possessive and also singular.
Now we have to understand the history of the denominations. The church of the New Testament existed past 100 AD and up to the time that “man” decided to change it. These changes (subtle to begin with) culminated in what we have come to know as the Roman Catholic Church. Martin Luther and other “priests” of the Roman Catholic Church realized that the “church” had gone far beyond the authorization of the Bible. This effort brought mankind out of the “Dark Ages” by the Protestant Reformation into the Renaissance. This was accompanied with such inventions as the printing press and the Bible being translated into the languages of the common man.
The protestant denominations are a direct product of the Roman Catholic Church. The word ‘protestant’ is used because they protested the actions of the Roman Catholic Church. The word ‘denomination’ is a mathematical term meaning ‘to divide or divided’.
To answer your question that “If people leave a denomination, where would you suggest they attend?”
The world would answer this question by saying “attend the church of your choice.” My advice would be to attend the church of God’s choice. The one that matches the characteristics found in the New Testament. As far as the word ‘non-denominational’ is concerned, the church of Christ or literally the church of the Christ is not denominational or non-denominational. It is rather pre-denominational since it preceeded both the Roman Catholic Church and its by-product Protestant Denominations.
God has never forced people to obey Him. He give them a choice. Study Hebrews and the book of Romans and you will see that those that are counted to be righteous are those that obey Him. Acts 2:38 and following shows that we do not “join” a church. Rather when we obey God, HE adds us to His church — That same possessive and singular church mentioned in Matthew 16.
Non-denominational does not equal “acceptable”. I much prefer that all people do what God says do — nothing more, nothing less — so they will be added to HIS church — the ONLY acceptable church in HIS eyes.
After reading this I could only think of one thing. What Churches of Christ need the most is 99% of expositional teaching and preaching of the books of the Bible context by context, line upon line, precept upon precept, and yes…chapter by chapter and verse by verse. I was hesitant to add chapter and verse since that is not inspired. I think you all know what I mean. And Churches know what expositional teaching of the books of the Bible is. It’s done usually in special classes. I remember as a young Christian I took a Romans class and then an Acts class. But those two classes could have been preaching on Sunday mornings and Sunday nights over a period of months.
Yes, that type of preaching and teaching 99% of the time. Since the beginning of the Restoration Movement CoC have taught primarily topical. And topical is fine, but after so many years preachers can pay attention too much to their pet topical doctrines.
What prevents the whole counsel of God being taught and learned among members? When preachers only focus on their favorite doctrines…and yes ones that are true. But with expositional teaching of the books of the Bible the whole counsel of God is taught and over a period of time the people have a better understanding and appreciation for the truth and authority of the scriptures.
And so I mention this as only as a suggestion and to ask you all to have a vision (lack of a better term) of what I’m writing about.
Let the Word of God over a period of years take care of the issues among CoC. And do that by expositional teaching of the books of the Scriptures and you will see the congregations grow.
and here’s a good translation….
http://www.churchesofchrist.net/bibles/MLV/mlvindex.htm
I know and understand the history of the denominations, but thank you for the reminder. I’m glad to hear you make a differentiation between our definition of church, and God’s definition of church. I think that it is very important for people to acknowledge this difference.
I believe that God sets forth His commandments. We MUST follow those commandments. But I believe what needs to happen more than leaving denominations is a unification of all churches. Impossible? No. The problems that come with many churches are the traditions that churches have added. Thanks traditions are much like the “fence around the law” that the Jews have set up. If you strip away traditions and doctrines that are not biblically based, you will find that many churches are very very similar.
The CofC and Christian Church used to be thethe same church. I’ve always thought that may be a starting point for unification… and that is taking place in some areas.
Please excuse the errors in spelling. I was using my phone to type.
Absolutely!!!! In the 17th chapter of the gospel of John, that is what our Lord prayed for. Paul in Ephesians 4 listed all the “one’s”. Unification is VERY IMPORTANT.
Now the question: What caused the division? Did the Bible cause the division? Absolutely not! It was the fact that man has varied from the truth. You are further right that the Christian Church and CofC in America both have roots in the Restoration Movement. However, the Christian Church lessened their standards below that of the Bible. If you read Alexander Cambell’s works, you will see that in later life, he started to abandon the cause that he fought for for so long.
When you look at the history of the CofC in recent years, the distinctiveness of the church has been softened to try to appeal to more people and therefore in many locations, it appears to be just “another church”.
I cannot control what anyone else does as far as their salvation is concerned. I can only do what I must to assure my salvation. Therefore I am going to follow the commandments of the God and worship according to His Word in the church to which I was added at my conversion. That way, Revelation 2:10 will apply to me.
It is like walking through a swamp. There are places that are dry land, places you know your feet are going to get wet and places that might or might not be solid ground. I prefer to stay where it is obviously right with no chance of messing up.
God is not an “author of confusion”. If we all followed the Bible — nothing but the Bible — and have Book, Chapter and Verse for everything we do in the name of religion….. there would be no religious division —- we would all be members of the same church – The church of the Christ – that belongs to HIm because he bought it with his precious blood. Religious division comes when man thinks he can vary from that Word. How wrong do you have to be to be wrong? When one is driving down the road in a 55 mph speed limit, at what point is he guilty of breaking the law? 75? 70? 60? How about 55.1? Is one any less guilty breaking it just a little? Josh, my prayer for you is that you will strive to make sure your worship is acceptable by doing it according to the Word in the church that was founded by Jesus himself.
I will be the first person to tell you that God is a VERY black and white God. Many churches have made him a very gray God. I feel that is where their problem lies.
I am curious as to where you think the Christian church has lessened their standards. And what commandments that it has broken. I can think of a couple of areas where the church differs from the CofC, but nothing that has been a specific command of Christ.
You are correct in saying that the Bible did not cause the division of the church. The more correct statement would be that many church’s interpretation of the Bible should be blamed for the division. I have even seen (and heard of) different CofC churches interpret things differently. A lot of it varies by region. For example, in your neck of the woods, clapping during church might be a big “No No,” while some churches I have been to up north have no issue with it at all. This is a small example, but I’m sure you can see the correlation.
I would like to think that each CofC is the same, but I know that not to be the case. And following your logic (and please correct me if I am taking you wrong), it sounds to me like you are saying that only a church with the name “Church of Christ” is to be trusted, and even beyond that one must make sure they are on the straight and narrow. I am all for the latter part of that statement, but the beginning part of that statement I would have an issue with. Not because I don’t attend a CofC, but because, as I have stated before, I feel this verges on putting a “fence around the law.”
I may be using a lot of virtual hot air here, and you may tell me I am way off of what you are trying to get across, but this is how it is coming across to me.
What I am seeing is that you are putting a LOT of emphasis on the actual name of the church instead of a person’s relationship with the trinity. I think we are coming at this from two different angles. I believe you are coming it at from a very tradition CofC view (and I’m not saying that is all bad), and I am coming at it from a relational viewpoint (i.e.-where is your heart with God?).
These are hard questions that need to be answered for the sake of Christ’s church. Hopefully this is something that can spark a path to unity. There was unity during the beginning of the reformation. Why can’t there be unity now?
Josh. Sorry for the delay in answering….. I had to make a quick trip to Pennsylvania and back. 27 hours on the road with no sleep….. If I say something that does not make sense, please bear with me as I am still fairly exhausted.
You asked where I think the Christian Church has departed from the truth and that with the differences you see that no “specific command of Christ” has been broken. The New Testament sets forth a pattern for worship and Christian living. Christ did speak certain commands. Other commands come from the inspired writers of the Bible through the direction of the Holy Spirit. One area that the Christian Church (and some congregations using the name Church of Christ on their sign) is in the fact that they use instrumental music. The NT does not authorize the use of a musical instrument, so it is to be excluded. For example if you send a child to the store with the instructions to buy milk, bread and eggs; do you have to list every other item in the store with a “do not buy …..” line for each item? The silence of scripture is the “authorization” most people use for the use of a musical instrument. But just like the store list, the silence excludes. Simple logic.
As fas as the “name” goes…. Yes there is importance in a name. If not, please have your employer put my name on your next paycheck and every check thereafter. Or how about letting your wife wear my name instead of yours….
There are many scriptural names in the NT for the church. Romans 16:16 uses the phrase “the churches of Christ salute you”. This was a fitting name for the church in the 1st century after the church was formed and evidently, every Christian knew who the churches of Christ were. This is a possessive showing ownership of the Christ; just like Mrs. John Doe show the possessiveness of the husband. The name is important, but the congregation MUST meet the characteristics of the church found in the NT to be “THE (one) church belonging to the Christ: the church of Christ.” Not any woman can be my wife — My wife has certain characteristics that makes her the “wife of Mark or Mark’s wife”.
You mentioned hand clapping. I have no problem with it at all if you can show authorization in the NT for it.
The important thing is that you follow the pattern set forth in the NT. If you were in the clothing business, making shirts for example. If you have 10 seamstresses making medium size shirts, how do you make sure that every one of them makes them exactly the same size? The only way this can be accomplished is to furnish them a pattern. They cut, sew, etc. according to the pattern and every shirt they make with be a size medium. What happens if one of them says, “I can do this without a pattern.” It won’t be the same. The same logic applies to the congregations of the Lord’s church. Even in the 1st century, congregations needed guidance — thus the letters recorded in the NT. IF and ONLY IF we follow that pattern, then we have a SCRIPTURAL congregation that is pleasing to God. If we vary that pattern, how wrong do we have to be to be wrong?
We have the obligation as individuals to search the scriptures daily, to study what God has revealed to mankind to be redeemed back to him, and DO IT to be pleasing to Him.
With my physical and mental exhaustion, I hope that I have somewhat answered your concerns. I agree that unity is very important. But God’s Word, His pattern for the church, cannot be varied at all in the name of unity. His church is special, His church is the one He is coming back for and will be presented to the Father. Unity can be accomplished when all believers go back to the NT and follow the pattern just as the congregations or churches of the 1st century did. Those that did not return are the ones listed in Revelation that had their candlestick removed.
Wow…totally lost track of who I was talking to. Looking for thoughts from Andy here.
I’ve been eagerly reading your’s and Mark’s exchange. I appreciate the attitude you have both brought to the discussion. When I originally posted this I was afraid it might produce some heated argument rather than civil discussion. You have proven me wrong and I thank you for it.
I think a lot of the contrast between you and Mark at this point is in your ability to define what church “traditions” really are. I say that because you claim that if churches would simply strip away traditions and doctrines that are biblically based that we could all be one. With that I completely agree. The problem is that many (I don’t know if you do or not) assume that many biblically based positions taken by the church of Christ are really just traditional matters when they are so much more.
As an example, I hear people talk a lot about the church of Christ’s “tradition” of singing acapella rather than using instruments. But that is not a tradition. That is a position we have taken based on the authority of the scriptures. That’s not something that can or should be changed for the sake of unity. Unity can only be accomplished when everyone individually gives up their own personal opinions and prejudices and accepts what God says, nothing more and nothing less. In matters where God has not legislated man does have the ability to do things according to his own best logic. But we cannot compromise in God’s essentials to appease any man. At the end of the day (or more specifically at the judgment) what good would that do us anyway?
With that said I will exit the conversation again and for the sake of clarity (so that discussion doesn’t become too scattered) allow you and Mark to continue. Thanks.
You know, Andy. I’ve sincerely put a good deal of honest thought and analysis about your post and these subsequent replies. I’ve thought of this in terms of my statistical/mathematical knowledge (profession) and my personal experiences as a 6th Generation C(c)hurch of Christ member with circuit-rider roots. I’ve applied my understanding of mathematical models and I’ve even considered writing a program to demonstrate the problem you face.
And I’ve concluded that you (and others here) need to reconsider what James Church said, both in literal and in larger terms. Because he is telling you substantive things about the decline of the Church of Christ on which you can think and act upon. And perhaps you can rescue a remnant of the best parts of the Restorationist Movement.
I left recently. Much of my generation (X), and Gen Y has left, preceding a wave of Millenials, who are set to leave in droves. You are only seeing the leading edge of their departure. Most of my fellow OC alumni have left “The Church.” And most of my friends from Harding. A surprising number of my F-H friends have left. And most of my friends at ACU. In fact, only Pepperdine grads seem to have a consistent retention rate.
You aren’t just looking at a lost generation, you are looking at a complete abandonment by multiple generations combined with a standard attrition rate. Make no mistake, you are at a numerical tipping point and it is a trend well beyond just the Churches of Christ.
And believe me when I say that most among who’s left in X,Y and the Millennials are pretty much treading water. When I talk to them intimately – when they think no one is around to judge them – they confide as much. The only thing they lack, by their own admission, is the gumption to leave. They admit this to me – grateful that they ran into me instead of someone they go to church with – because they have a bottle of wine in their grocery cart and I won’t out them.
I agree that the church growth consultants are fairly useless. As they only promote window dressing. Which works to stimulate excitement (and growth) for only a short time. They promote changing what is not meaningful in order to give a perception of progress and openness.
But as you know, from your PR studies at F-H, this is just a kind of Hawthorne Effect. No substantial change, just the appearance of it.
So, your natural instinct is to double down on strictest literal understandings of theologies, practices and doctrines. You call these principles “fundamentals.” And you figure this will rally the troops, because these things are substantial.
Maybe you can even dispense with a few inconvenient “traditions” (which were once a critical principle to a substantial portion of the membership, else they wouldn’t have existed) in order to look like something concrete and meaningful is happening or that some thought reform is occurring.
But this will not help. Because all you are doing is a variation of the same thing the consultants are; giving the appearance of change. And soon enough, it will become obvious that it’s an insubstantial change.
In the immortal words of Yoda, you must unlearn.
The point of evolution that James makes is a good example of what you must unlearn and rethink. And your response to him on the matter of evolution underscores the example.
The problem of evolution is not that understanding and subscribing to it leads to a crisis in faith or is in itself an attack on God. The problem is that the accepted tactic is to promote Christianity and reinforce Biblical literalism by doubling down on the rejection of evolution. Christian leaders are picking a fight and pursuing the attack by way of promoting an active pursuit of ignorance and a willful propagation of misinformation.
When people act to deceive, in order to fight a notion they feel threatens faith, they are agents of The Deceiver. Not because they are directly liars or frauds, but that they work to deceive themselves and then propagate that self-deception to others. When the world sees Christians do this, they see them as borrowing against the credibility of God to validate their beliefs. And when those beliefs are examined, these Christians come up intellectually bankrupt. Christians shrug it off as a lack of faith, knocking the dust off their shoes on the doorsteps of the skeptical non-believers. But the injured party, in terms of credibility, is God.
It’s kind of like when I get a Facebook post from a Christian talking about Obama charging an email tax or building a mosque. I don’t care that they believe this, I don’t care about their politics. I care that they propagate that which is provably false… because they chose not to research it, they want to believe it and because they feel they must believe it in order to be a compliant Christian.
These people arrogantly feel their beliefs outweigh the need for examination, consideration and introspection. These people who feel no need to admit ignorance or remain quiet in the face of their ignorance. These people who would rather dictate than ask a question. These people rob your church of good souls.
If I were Satan, I’d want a lot of those folks packing the pews. And I’d be getting them, too. Because those are the only personalities left after they scare away everyone else.
So if you want to turn things around for real, instead of just hosting some go-nowhere Sunday morning class on “The Purpose Driven Church,” the members and leadership will need to rediscover their diverse philosophical roots and promote an environment in which these thoughts can flourish and be expressed.
The Church is going to have to change its mind about important things. It’s members and leadership is going to have to apologize for what they’ve gotten wrong (or else society will force the issue and put us in an ever-shrinking corner.) And the Church will need to cease obsessing with ensuring the theological/doctrinal/practical compliance of members.
Forgive the multiple posts. I didn’t mean for that to be so long and din’t realize there was a 4096 character limit. Hopefully, it get’s posted in the right order.
No problem on the multiple comments. Thanks for reading. The problem with what you and James are advocating is that you say the church must change its fundamental theology in order to appeal to people of 21st century society. But that is the exact opposite of what the Bible teaches. The Bible doesn’t say that we have the liberty to change Christianity to agree with our beliefs. The Bible teaches we must change what we believe to agree withChristianity (the Bible) – see Romans 12:1-2.
If the Bible is right (as I obviously believe it is) then we cannot improve on it. We should simply accept it. If the Bible is wrong then we shouldn’t even try to change it (Revelation 22:18-19). We should just abandon it. I tire of hearing people claim to accept the Bible as God’s word but do not accept what it says. To assume that we have the right or ability to improve on the Bible is to claim that we are wiser than God.
Ultimately what I find most telling from statements like your’s and James’ is that you offer advice for what Christians need to do to improve Christianity so you will stay but not once do you cite a Bible verse. Everything is about what you think or how you feel.
At some point if we were to take your advice I would argue that we cease to be the church God originally established. No amount of “growth” or retention is worth enough to compromise truth. After all, it is the gospel that will save (Romans 1:16) so it better be the gospel we entrust to guide us.
Thanks so much for reading and please take what I’ve written with the same heart with which I’ve tried to write it. I don’t intend to sound harsh, but I did want to be clear so there was no confusion as to what I meant.
Wow. Been a while since I’ve been back. That took a different turn than what I was expecting. So I want to sum up my thoughts here. 1) I believe that the church that gave itself the name “Church of Christ” does not hold the sole right to being Christ’s church. Maybe Mark and I were misunderstanding each other there. I have been talking about the physical (what I would call a denomination) church. I am hoping that Mark was talking about the church in respect to those who follow God’s Word and commandments. 2) I agree with salyut in the idea that the CofC needs to do a little bit of an introspection. They need to check themselves, and make sure that what they are teaching is accurate and in context. Many churches and denominations have gotten themselves in trouble over the centuries because some things they have taught, because “we’ve taught this way for centuries.” For me, one of those issues with the CofC is instrumental music. The verse that I’ve always heard used is Eph. 5:19. I personally believe that the CofC uses this verse out of context. And a question I would put forth is, Is this an essential issue? Does the CofC consider this a sin? 3) If the CofC wants to stop the exodus, I would suggest that it makes it’s stance known. When I was in college (York College), a chapel service was held, and the speaker put forth the question, “Who here believes that there is nothing wrong with musical instruments in the church? Raise your hand.” Over half of the group of 200 raised their hand. With that example, I would suggest that the CofC revisit why it believes what it believes, and make it very clear to those coming in why they believe these things.