If a congregation or group within it has decided it wants to grow, the next question is how to go about it. My answer is that we should look at other churches that are growing and figure out how they are doing it. Fortunately, it’s not rocket science. The Divine Principle envisions that Christianity will divide between dying and rising segments, and history is bearing out the truth of this prophecy.1 I propose that if we want to grow, we should figure out the differences between the two and emulate the churches that are growing.
It is not a mystery as to which churches are dying. Historian Paul Johnson refers to them as the “Seven Sisters” — American Baptist Churches of the USA, the Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ), the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, the Presbyterian Church, USA, the United Church of Christ and the United Methodist Church. Johnson cites one study that calculated that the Methodists were losing 1,000 members a week for thirty years. The seven denominations “as a whole lost between a fifth and a third of their members in the years 1960-90.” His perception as a historian is that they declined “chiefly because they forfeited their distinguishing features, or indeed any features. After the Episcopal Church’s General Convention of 1994, marked by a bitter dispute over the right of practicing homosexuals to become or remain clergy, one official observer commented: ‘The Episcopal Church is an institution in free fall. We have nothing to hold onto, no shared belief, no common assumptions, no bottom line, no accepted definition of what an Episcopalian is or believes.‘”2 A neighbor of mine, a devout Episcopalian lay minister, believes that the church’s stance on homosexuality and abortion will lead God to destroy it. This does not bode well for church growth.
A neighbor of mine, a devout Episcopalian lay minister, believes that the church’s stance on homosexuality and abortion will lead God to destroy it. This does not bode well for church growth.
Different outcomes arise from different causes, and church growth has identifiable causes. The growing churches are going about their work differently than the dying churches. They know what is causing their growth. They know the dying churches are in trouble, and they reject their ways. Any church that desires to grow would be foolish to ignore this.
Table 1 sets forth a number of ways in which dying and rising congregations differ.
Table 1: Characteristics of Growing Versus Dying Churches3
| Dying Churches | Growing Churches | |
|---|---|---|
| Age of congregation | In existence more than 35 years | Founded in the last 10 years |
| Ethnic mix | Homogeneous Anglo | Multi-racial |
| Gender mix | 60% or more regularly participating adults are female | 60% or more regularly participating adults are male |
| Mission clarity | Unclear to the members | Clear to the members |
| Congregational spirit | Feel like a close-knit family | Little sense of being a close-knit family |
| Congregational atmosphere | Not spiritually vital and alive, “we do not encounter God” | Spiritually vital and alive, “we encounter God” |
| Attitude toward change | Not willing to change to meet new challenges | Very willing to change to meet new challenges |
| Scheduling | One worship service each weekend | Three or more worship services each weekend |
| Use of media | No local church web site | Have a local church web site |
| Polity and tradition | Mainline Protestant or Catholic style | Evangelical style |
| Latitude | Broad, accommodating, middle-of-the-road | Narrow, whether on the right (large majority of cases) or on the left (in other words, if you are going to the left, go all the way and be clear about it) |
| Church politics | Major internal conflict | Little or no internal conflict |
| Character of worship | Reverent | Joyful, exciting, inspirational, thought-provoking |
| Worship music | Drums and percussion seldom if ever used in worship services | Drums and percussion are used in worship services |
| Program target | Few or no programs or events to attract non-members to become members | Regular programs that attract non-members to become members |
| Planning | No plan for growth, to recruit members | Plan for growth, to recruit members |
| Member support | No support groups such as bereavement, marriage, divorced, wellness, 12-step | Have support groups such as bereavement, marriage, divorced, wellness, 12-step |
| Attention to visitors | Do not follow-up with visitors, or do so in only one way | Follow-up with visitors in many ways |
| Historical position | Mainstream Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox | Evangelical, “other” Christian |
I leave it to you to peruse the chart and come to your own conclusion about the particular differences between dying and growing churches, and whether your experience in your own congregation fits these general statistics, and why and how to change it. I will simply underline a couple of points.
One, this survey of 14,301 local churches, synagogues, parishes, temples and mosques, shows that members of plateaued and dying churches reported that they were like a “close-knit family” to an extent much greater than members of growing churches, who emphasized factors such as supportive ministry, joyful worship and willingness to make changes.4
Two, the evangelical and “other” Christian churches are growing, and the liberal mainline Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox denominations are not.5 Based on that, I want to drill deeper into the differences between these two types of churches, based on my readings and observations.
Table 2: Typical Differences Between Liberal and Evangelical Churches
| Liberal Mainline | Evangelical | |
|---|---|---|
| Leadership | Seminary graduates | Preachers and organizers educated in the local churches and Bible schools |
| Location | Always a church building | Often an alternative to the traditional church building, such as a former grocery store, warehouse, theatre, storefront, house, rented space in a public school, etc. |
| Membership | Mandatory, based on infant baptism | Voluntary, based on believer’s baptism |
| Target market | Members by birth, committed to the denomination | People with no commitment to a church |
| Mission | Social causes and traditional practices | To save people |
| Worship and liturgy | Formulaic, theologically-generated, by the book, liturgical | Innovative, flexible, aspires to move the emotions through praise and worship, contemporary art forms and relevant messages |
| Worship music | Organ, traditional hymns | Electric guitar, bass and drums, praise songs |
| View toward other faiths | Ecumenical: God is working through everyone | Evangelical: God is here; we are called to save you |
| Spirituality | Spiritual experiences are not expected | Open to spiritual healing, prophesy, extemporaneous prayer |
| Marriage and family | Affirming personal choice | Strict traditional guidelines |
| Governance | Governed by a multi-level national hierarchy | Flat; empowerment of local leadership |
| Polity | Parish system | Free church — no parish lines |
Throughout its history as a free society, the American main street has served as an environment for religious innovation. Upstart religious leaders have met the market’s demand for religion that fits their culturally shaped needs and interests. On Sunday mornings, people vote with their feet. The result is the growth of locally governed, populist churches and rapid decline of traditional mainstream denominations.
Donald Miller, a religious scholar at the University of Southern California, writes, “Historians and sociologists of religion widely acknowledge a substantial restructuring among American religious institutions.” The contemporary culture, unlike the post-World War II generation, values on-the-ground leadership. “Consider the values of baby boomers,” writes Miller — values, I add, that they have passed on to their offspring:
- They don’t like bureaucratic structure
- ‘Brand’ loyalty has very little meaning
- Tradition is more often a negative than a positive word…
- They want to be involved in running and managing their own organizations
- They tend to be local in their interests6
Thus, Miller argues, the new paradigm churches speak to the contemporary culture, and this helps explain their popularity and growth. This is no surprise; denizens of the popular culture created these churches. We have seen that it has been the story of religion in America since the 17th century. The Unification Church with a populist model that gives responsibility with ownership to the members will stimulate vision, creativity and teamwork.
Footnotes
Footnotes
-
E.g., EDP, pp. 4-5, 98-9, 340. ↩
-
Paul Johnson, op. cit., pp. 968-9. For current Episcopalian statistics, see http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/ecusa_history.html. ↩
-
Derived from C. Kirk Hadaway, “Facts on Growth,” based on the “Faith Communities Today 2005” Hartford Seminary national survey of 14,301 local churches, synagogues, parishes, temples and mosques. http://fact.hartsem.edu/products/index.html. ↩
-
Hadaway, op. cit. ↩
-
By “other Christians” the survey means chiefly the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Jehovah’s Witnesses. They are growing and yet have some characteristics very different from the populist model. Sociologically the Unification Church would be categorized with these “cults.” I present a brief analysis of these groups in the Appendix. ↩
-
Donald Miller, The Reinvention of American Protestantism (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1996), p. 17. ↩