In her book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey writes that churches that change are churches that decline.
Well before the American Revolution, leading scholars at Harvard and Yale had become Unitarian. Instead of exhorting their congregations to repent and be saved, they delivered elegant styled lectures on “reasonable religion,” with the supernatural elements increasingly stripped away. When the First and Second Great Awakenings broke out, the liberal clergy firmly opposed them, declaring themselves on the side of “Reason” against the revivalists’ “religion of the heart.”
That was a sure recipe for failure. It is a common assumption that, in order to survive, churches must accommodate to the age. But in fact, the opposite is true: In every historical period, the religious groups that grow most rapidly are those that set believers at odds with the surrounding culture. As a general principle, the higher a group’s tension with mainstream society, the higher its growth rate.
In 1776, the three largest Christian denominations in the United States were Congregationalists (20.4% of all religious adherents), Episcopalian (15.7%) and Presbyterian (19.0%). Those were the established churches that sought to separate “Reason” from faith, and thus conform to the current culture. By 1850 they had all dropped radically and in direct proportion to their abandonment of traditional Christian theology: Congregationalists (4.0%), Episcopalians (3.5%) and Presbyterian (11.6%).
They were overtaken by the Baptist (16.9 to 20.5%) and the Methodists (2.5% to 34.2%) who grew because of evangelistic fervor and who preached a gospel that “cost” something. Followers had to be “in, but not of the world.”
Today the Congregationalists have all but ceased to exist (0.7%). Episcopalian are down to only 1.7% of the US population. Presbyterians are at 2.7% (and they have the largest percentage of conservative, evangelical churches and members). Baptists have over taken Methodists as the largest Protestant denomination, as the Methodists have drifted toward a more liberal theology. Baptists represent 16.3% of the US population, while Methodists are at 6.8%.
Churches that are growing the most are often non-denominational (up to 1.2% of US population in 2002) and Pentecostal churches (up to 2.8%) both of whom are largely conservative in their theology and evangelical in their practices.
These numbers have only been in the United States, but the worldwide numbers are even more telling. At the current rate of growth, in a few decades China will be over 30% Christian. In nations where the government and culture is opposed to Christianity, the Church is flourishing and adding members on a daily basis.
While the case is continually made that churches which hold on to “ancient” teachings are more likely to die out, the numbers indicate that churches who seek to adopt the current line of secular thinking are the ones who lose membership.
One explanation may be that churches who seek to adapt cannot offer followers a sense of consistency. Denominations that are led by cultural dictates cannot give adherents a solid foundation as their theology changes to suit outside influences.
Whatever the case, the data support the fact that a church which keeps its doctrine consistent and its theology conservative will experience growth, while churches that view doctrinally change as necessary to cultural relevance will experience a decline in membership and relevance.
I also forgot to mention that none of the top 20 churches (attendance wise) are mainline denominations. The first time one appears in a Methodist at 21.
The top twenty are either some type of Pentecostal, Non-Denominational or Southern Baptist.
The Methodist are the only mainline denomination to have any on the megachurch (top 1,300) list (68 – behind Non-denominational (287), Southern Baptist (216), Baptist (123) and Assembly of God (85)).
So you think that the measure of an idea's value or legitimacy lies in the number of people it attracts? Is Truth dependent on some notion's popularity? Strange.
Can you point me to the place where I said that numbers = truth?
I was only making the point that contrary to popular opinion, "changing with the times' in terms of theology does not make a church more culturally relevant. It does the opposite.
Clearly, I am not saying that popularity is the determining factor for truth. I said as much in the second post on this topic – that I don't agree with the theology of many of the top ten churches.
I am saying that mainline churches who are changing in order to "fit in" or follow the lead of the secular world, do so at a cost. I would say to their theology, but unarguably to their numbers.
Aaron, I think Louis's point was that whether a theology is "culturally relevant" is sort of unimportant. American Idol is "culturally relevant" (and quantitatively more popular than any church in this country), but that doesn't have any bearing on the quality of a PBS documentary.
I totally agree with that comment, what I am saying is that when I hear leaders of liberal churches they often use that phrase for why they must change their theology.
My point is that in trying to become culturally relevant they become culturally irrelevant because they are no longer agents for change, but rather someone else following the crowd of contemporary "knowledge."
Who cares if their churches are bigger? The church I used to attend was one of the biggest on the west coast and its theology and practice would curl your hair. Further, I think you are being uncharitable here: these churches leaders really, truly believe that they are being true to the Gospels. They care nothing about being "culturally relevant." In fact, they see themselves as opposing the times just as much as you do. The fact that you either can't or won't see this speaks volumes (I'll be charitable and chalk it up to ignorance).
One of the reasons I think these more conservative/fundamentalist/evangelical churches are growing is that people want certainties in an increasingly chaotic, dangerous, and uncertain world. They can give people a sense of importance and security that they would otherwise not have. They also provide convenient scapegoats which would otherwise be lacking (I speak on some authority here, being the object of their irrational prejudice). I, myself, prefer reality.
I don't "care" that the churches are bigger, again not my point.
Many leaders of liberal churches believe that there are being consistent with the Gospel, but most recognize what they are doing as a shift from traditional Christian theology and are doing so because modern culture is less condemning of homosexuality than older cultures.
I do see that they see themselves as "opposing the times." The difference is between how they view the times. Where conservative (and by this I mean theology, not politics, although the two are often connected) Christians view "the times" or "the culture" as being the prevailing secular culture. Liberal (again theological) view "the time" as being the prevailing church culture.
I basically agree with this. I don't know how much "importance" is gained from conservative churches, but I do believe that security and consistency are part of why people are attracted to theologically conservative churches. I said as much in the post.
I hope a "scapegoat" is not one of the reasons, though I don't doubt that some unfortunately find that in gay people or any other group that they seek to condemn. Christians should understand better than anyone else that no further scapegoat is needed. Christ became the ultimate sacrificial lamb, therefore a scapegoat is no longer required to carry away the sins or blame of the people.
I think your position is much clearer now, Aaron. On the other hand, I can't help but comment on this statement:
I understand that you believe in sin and blame, as real, if not quite tangible things. We disagree on that, and so I won't make it the topic of discussion here. But supposing they did exist as objective realities, can you explain to me why you think it's reasonable that your god would ever have considered literal scapegoating to be a sensible recourse in their event? That is to say, I find the idea of killing a goal to be not only bizarre and cruel, but also frankly quite a dumb manner by which one would absolve oneself of responsibility for a wrongdoing. Doesn't it seem just a little bit silly and contrived to you, too?
If you don't care that certain conservative churches are bigger why did you add the following? –
I also forgot to mention that none of the top 20 churches (attendance wise) are mainline denominations. The first time one appears in a Methodist at 21.
The top twenty are either some type of Pentecostal, Non-Denominational or Southern Baptist.
The Methodist are the only mainline denomination to have any on the megachurch (top 1,300) list (68 – behind Non-denominational (287), Southern Baptist (216), Baptist (123) and Assembly of God (85)).
You certainly made a big deal about how big these churches are in comparison to more mainline and liberal denominations. Why?
Many leaders of liberal churches believe that there are being consistent with the Gospel, but most recognize what they are doing as a shift from traditional Christian theology and are doing so because modern culture is less condemning of homosexuality than older cultures.
Could it be that "traditional Christian theology" was wrong? Do you deny that everything we are and do and think is colored by the times in which we live? Why is this wrong? Shouldn't each generation reexamine the beliefs of the past in the light of current knowledge? Christians used to believe that royalism was established by God, women were inferior, slavery was okay, the world was flat, etc., etc. These ideas have rightly been abandoned (in contradiction to the Bible), even by conservatives. Why? Isn't this just kowtowing to modern, cultural relevancy? And just because we now treat homosexuals as human beings, Christianity should oppose this? Christians used to imprison, torture, burn, and generally persecute gays "because it's in the Bible." Traditional Christian theology condemns gays to death and Hell. Do you support this? Why or why not? Just because people used to believe something doesn't make it universally true for all time?
I agree about Christ and scapegoating. However, Christianity has always sought scapegoats, from the Jews to Gays (supported by the bible). Yet another reason to dismiss it as fruit of the poisoned vine.