Choosing Church Growth or Decline?

on February 7, 2015

Are church vitality and growth a mystery? And is decline inevitable?

Recently I was conversing with a United Methodist friend about a church we previously attended. It’s now in difficult financial straits, property has been sold, membership is down, and the minister is leaving early.

The trajectory would be familiar to many Mainline Protestants. There was a film series introduced into the adult Sunday school featuring Bishop John Shelby Spong and Marcus Borg, among other radical revisionists, generating contentious debate and ill will. The lobbyist for United Methodism’s liberal Capitol Hill office was a featured guest preacher. The U.S. flag was removed from the sanctuary. The small young adult group was sent to visit an urban Reconciling congregation as an exemplar. “Transgender” and “global warming” occasionally appeared in a sermon, as did references to supposedly universal church decline across America, to which we were evidently to be reconciled. “Sexual orientation” appeared on the church website. A prayer to “our Father/Mother God” prompted me to stop attending there altogether.

All of this liberal inclusivity and diversity should have been enticing to Millennials and other sought after demographics, right? Of course not. The once strong and large congregation now may or may not survive.

That story, as I was telling my friend after worship at another United Methodist church, contrasts with another previously dying congregation in the area, which is Southern Baptist. It has a large, imposing property but the congregation had dwindled to a few elderly. Another conservative Presbyterian congregation that rents the property had been expected eventually to purchase it. But a new young Southern Baptist pastor was dispatched, and a couple hundred are now worshipping in his congregation. He has a dramatic testimony, and he is emphatic about the exclusivity of Christ and the Bible’s authority. His message and ministry fall considerably outside the parameters of political correctness. And now his once dying church has a future.

My United Methodist friend remarked upon hearing this story that in general we know what will grow a church. It’s not a mystery. The real question is, do we want the biblical message and ministry that will attract new people, or do we prefer less challenging alternatives, with predictable outcomes. Church vitality and decline to a large extent are choices. For 50 years, once Mainline denominations have chosen to decline. Some Evangelical churches have chosen to grow. The Lord sets that choice before every church and honors the decisions made.

  1. Comment by Pudentiana on February 7, 2015 at 10:31 am

    Isn’t it really about FAITH? If folks want to aggrandize their intellect and gain influence, the whole Gospel story is just to self-effacing and straightforward for many.

  2. Comment by halehawk on February 7, 2015 at 11:19 am

    Don’t you remember the conclusion of the consulting firm that our denomination hired before GC2012 to evaluate what makes a vital congregation? It stated that theology doesn’t matter. (I strongly disagree with their conclusion by the way.)

  3. Comment by yolo on February 9, 2015 at 2:52 am

    That’s like concluding that truth doesn’t matter.

  4. Comment by Namyriah on February 7, 2015 at 11:25 am

    The problem with “inclusion” is, no one wants to be included. People can get their Political Correctness from other sources than churches.

  5. Comment by Fran Brunson on February 8, 2015 at 8:14 am

    Years ago my husband and I attended an evangelical church – part of the United Church of Christ, which is the most liberal denomination, but back then it had a few remaining conservative congregations. Our congregation split off, to the immense satisfaction of the UCC bureaucrats. They were happy to see the traditionalists go, so I supposed it could be regarded as a win-win situation, but it doesn’t seem to bother the liberal churches that they are not only not abiding by the Bible (which doesn’t bother them at all) but losing members steadily (which also doesn’t bother them).

  6. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 8, 2015 at 11:23 am

    If the Lord sets the choice before every Church, why presume that the Lord

    would not include ALL people? Not just those who can’t find it in their hearts to accept our LGBT, Earth Conscious, family?

    I think what we are witnessing, is the shift in demographics from the ‘Old Guard Religionists’ with the ‘Evolutionists’.
    The former hold fast to dictates that were pertinent during ancient times when most peoples thought the Sun revolved around the Earth. The latter group, although better educated, still can’t buy into some of the regressive tenets and prejudices of yore.

  7. Comment by Namyriah on February 8, 2015 at 2:43 pm

    The New Testament knows nothing of this “include ALL people” meme.

    The church is composed of repentant sinners. The LGBT movement is about embracing your perversion, not repenting of it.

    It seems to upset you that churches don’t believe as you do. So even though you’re a lefty, you really don’t like diversity or multiculti. Your hatred for people different from you is palpable. I bet you’d love to silence all dissent, replace the old religious Inquisition with a new secular one, where the sodomites and the tree-huggers and the aging fruitcakes who run around naked get to execute the religious people.

  8. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 8, 2015 at 3:11 pm

    Ha,ha,ha!!!
    I literally laughed out loud! Good one, Namyriah!

    You truly don’t understand me at all!
    I’m completely for total inclusion. From the extremely religious, to the profoundly profane!
    Now who did I leave out?

    I could care less whether ANYBODY believed the way I do or not. I’m not like many conservatives who would have everybody be of ‘their’ religion.
    I truly love everybody, even YOU!

    Don’t knock social nudism until you’ve tried it. For over fifty years I’ve never known a Naturist to be on anything but his best behavior, so don’t judge people’s lifestyle by hearsay.

    I’m sorry you don’t embrace diversity, but you wouldn’t be alone in that attitude.

    The growing number of individuals who align with the LGBT ‘movement’ will have their liberties realized eventually. Just like the slow progress of our African-American brothers and sisters, there will finally come a day when they won’t feel ostracized.

    And we can all thank God for that!

  9. Comment by Namyriah on February 8, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    Well, you got in your scolding of Christians for the day, so great, go pat yourself on the back for a few hours. that’s why Christians have websites, to make the flakes feel good about how “loving” they are. Scolding Christians and engaging in indecent exposure doesn’t sound like much of a life, but who am I to judge?

  10. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 9, 2015 at 9:18 am

    No scolding from me!
    I’m just having a respectful exchange.
    How else will we learn anything about one another?

  11. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 8, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    “…replace the old religious Inquisition…” ?
    So you’d rather restore the Old Religious Inquisition?

  12. Comment by yolo on February 9, 2015 at 2:59 am

    Except that inquisition doesn’t exist.

  13. Comment by John S. on February 13, 2015 at 8:38 am

    Sure it does, question the LGBTQ orthodoxy and see what happens.

  14. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 17, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    “LGBT Orthodoxy” Now there’s an oxymoron!

  15. Comment by yolo on February 9, 2015 at 2:57 am

    Except these churches do exclude people: people who do not wish to hear about global warming in sermons; people who shop at big-box stores and do not purchase “fair trade”; people who aren’t liberal on lots of POLITICAL issues that these denominations concern themselves with.

  16. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 9, 2015 at 9:14 am

    And so, people who do not wish to hear about such global concerns, will simply attend a different church!
    We can’t expect everybody to be on the same page, all the time. It’s NOT the Church who EXCLUDES them, it’s the individual who chooses not to be included.

  17. Comment by Jason P Taggart on February 9, 2015 at 9:41 am

    Great, then it’s OK for homosexuals to feel excluded – particularly since the exclusion comes directly from God.

  18. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 9, 2015 at 9:49 am

    Homosexuals already feel excluded.
    Is that okay with you?
    Did God tell you to exclude them?

    I’m espousing the inclusion because these are people who love the same as you and I.
    If your mate is of the opposite sex, or same sex, it won’t exclude you from God’s grace.

  19. Comment by yolo on February 9, 2015 at 5:01 pm

    Exactly. And yes, unlike the POLITICAL issues that liberal denominations concern themselves with, the issues that Christians concern themselves with come directly from God.

  20. Comment by yolo on February 9, 2015 at 5:05 pm

    Liberal denominations have no basis for the exclusions that they make, certainly no basis that is biblical. Their exclusions are therefore politically based or perhaps socially, i.e. Marxism.

  21. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 10, 2015 at 8:16 am

    Funny how if something isn’t ordained from God, it must come from Communism or Socialism? Ha!

    The only record from which you’re determining ALL your decisions on, is the Bible?
    And THAT’S suppose to be enough “authority” to warrant mistreating other human beings for their differences?! Sheesh!

    You DO see how that doesn’t apply to the many billions of non-Christians around the world, right?

  22. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 10, 2015 at 8:21 am

    Issues like Climate change will affect you and your descendants eventually, so don’t presume God would have you be so dismissive about the way you have destroyed His creation.

    History will determine whether you all have your heads in the sand… or stuffed somewhere else!

  23. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 12, 2015 at 8:48 pm

    Why is it people who have no children or families take such an unhealthy interest in what will (supposedly) happen to other people’s kids?

    There is not one shred of scientific proof that human beings can change climate cycles. Human beings cannot “destroy” the planet. You are spewing secularist apocalyptic nonsense, all political propaganda used as a pretext for giving politicians more control over our personal lives. The green movement is fascist.

  24. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 12, 2015 at 11:28 pm

    You may be too young to remember the movie: ‘Soylent Green’ ?

    Not a box office hit, but a theatrical attempt to make people think about a scary anthropological extrapolation, the result of Man’s (over)domination of the planet. (Which, in the book, the date of destiny was (I think), 2022? So we still have THAT to look forward to!

    Another History lesson: Human beings have nearly destroyed our world with Nuclear War.

    So, YES, humans CAN, and probably will, destroy the planet!
    …”But that’s cool, because I won’t be around!”
    Now, I would never say that! And that is why I care about you, your children, and your grandchildren!

    I’ve never cared for the phrase: “I’ve got mine!”
    So I rail against that for Humanity’s sake.

  25. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 13, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    Soylent Green is science FICTION, not science – big difference. Fiction cannot serve as evidence for any scientific hypothesis. Dr. Strangelove depicted a nuclear holocaust – but hey, it was FICTION.

    There is no “history lesson” that “human beings have nearly destroyed our world with Nuclear War.” There has never been a nuclear war on earth – ever.

    Live in the real world, then you will become a conservative. Liberalism is fact-challenged.

  26. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 13, 2015 at 4:06 pm

    You have so much to learn about this world, and the nuances that make Life interesting.
    I can’t have a civilized discussion with such prejudice.
    Please consider all of History when making claims that prove untenable and downright ignorant.

  27. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 15, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Your debating skills are impressive. Call me “prejudiced” and “ignorant” and you win the argument, is that how it works? No prejudice at all on my part, I pointed out that Soylent Green is not science and only a fool would take a really dumb movie and regard it as prophecy. Also pointed out that there has never been a nuclear war on earth, ever, so the planet is not being “destroyed” by nuclear war. Love your last sentence: “Please consider all of history.” Hey, my mind is wide open – tell me about the “history” of nuclear war destroying the earth. I’m looking out my windows right now, I don’t see the destruction, everything looks pretty solid. Got some science to back up your assertions – you know, something besides Soylent Green? You do understand the difference between fiction and nonfiction, right?

    Artists and musicians – incapable of thought.

  28. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 15, 2015 at 3:56 pm

    Do your Artist and Musician friends know you feel that way about them?

    I never called YOU ignorant, I called the claims you were making, ignorant. Quite a difference!
    I’m not trying to “Win” an argument, I just seek to understand why others think the way they do.

    I’m sorry you don’t readily see any of the destruction that Man has heaped upon the planet.

    The risk of Nuclear annihilation bore down on the globe during the Cold War, and if it were not for the mutual understanding of total destruction of EVERYTHING, had anyone pressed the “Button”, we may have seen Armageddon fifty years ago!
    I’ll assume you were alive to remember that?
    I was! It wasn’t fiction, the threat was real!
    And I prefaced my statement regarding Soylent Green as a “Theatrical Extrapolation”, not Prophesy!

    Please pay attention when someone is making a point!

    Carry on with your snarky attitude of others with differing viewpoints, if that doesn’t impugn your integrity. …I’d be surprised.

    Love ya Bro!

  29. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 17, 2015 at 6:20 pm

    No, I do not “see any of the destruction that Man has heaped upon the planet.” Looks pretty solid to me.

    Try to focus on reality for a change:
    1. There has never been a nuclear war.
    2. We never even came close. “The threat was real” – no, the only way to prove a threat was real is if the prophesied disaster came to pass – and it didn’t.
    3. You cannot destroy a planet. If every nuke were detonated at once, it would not destroy earth. Most of the earth’s surface is water or uninhabited land. There is no “Button” to press to destroy the earth. Paranoid hysteria about nuclear power has prevented the US from having a cheap source of electrical power.

    Focus on reality, the “no nukes” crapola is for college sophomores and senile hippies. Preventing nuclear power plants from being built is withholding a positive good from mankind.

  30. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 17, 2015 at 6:40 pm

    Check the amount of plastics that float around our planet’s oceans. Do you not think that, a problem?

    I never said the planet experienced Nuclear War, I said it was a near disaster, and if that’s not close enough for your standards, then I don’t want to be near you when the shit really hits the fan.

    Does Chernobal and Fukashima (sp?) not figure into your picture of Man’s unnatural predilection for creating situations that aren’t safe?

    “Cheap source of electrical energy” … How is Nuclear cheap? Surely the repositories for it’s waste aren’t cheap, nor healthy!

    Wind and Solar will save us! Count on it!

    Your insensitivity in conversation indicates a sense of immaturity. I hope you’ll grow out of being so repugnant? There, I guess I stooped to calling you names now, so I’ll try to do better in the future.

    “the Button” was obviously lost on your lack of semantics, so I’ll let it go. Sheesh!

    I’ll state it one more time… Man has, and will continue to do grave harm to the Earth.
    He may not destroy the planet on a cosmic level, but he has the capacity to destroy Human life as we know it, and that should be nearly as bad as destroying the planet.
    Personally, I have little regard for the way Humans treat one another, so I shouldn’t be surprised to experience someone like you.

    And YES! I am an aging Hippie!
    Get used to hearing and seeing us more often.
    We’re not going away any time soon!

    Namaste’

  31. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 10, 2015 at 8:17 am

    Sure, if you think God would ‘behave’ the same as you!
    How do you treat your LGBT friends on this subject?

  32. Comment by creek house on February 11, 2015 at 6:42 pm

    God is pretty clear on who comes into His kingdom and who doesn’t. Basically it doesn’t really matter what sin your doing, if your doing it willfully and in disregard to His commands then your living in disobedience and you’ll die in your sins. There is no redemption for those who willfully sin and are not repentant. Christ’s sacrifice was for those who believed He was the Son of God and turned away from their sin and committed their life to God in obedience. God would love for the LGBT community to come to the building His church is gathering in to worship Him and learn about Him. But to become part of the church you have to obey God. God is not going to allow the very thing that separates us from Him to become part of His kingdom. Sin is Satan’s attempt to kill us forever and Gods not having any of that. I used to do a lot of things that are sin before I became a Christian, but once I met Jesus it was no contest who I wanted to follow.

  33. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 12, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    ” Christ’s sacrifice was for those who believe he was the Son of God…”

    Exactly! I think repentance of sin is healthy, cathartic and righteous. But it might, or might not apply to the billions of people who honor a different religion than Christianity?

    I personally don’t believe same-sex couples are sinful. They love one another the very same as any heterosexual couple! Many love God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost, so why such segregation toward those in our community who are Gay?

    I’m very happy for your conversion.
    Namaste’

  34. Comment by creek house on February 18, 2015 at 2:40 pm

    You will have to argue with God on that. I follow what he says and not my own thinking. 2Timothy 4:3. If a person truly believes and loves God that is what they will do. When you have questions ask God to show it to you in His word.

  35. Comment by creek house on February 18, 2015 at 4:31 pm

    Marco there is only one God. He is not Allah, Buddha, Shiva or anyone else, He is I AM. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Exodus 3:6. There is only one way to salvation. John 3:16. Without faith in Jesus Christ as your savior there is no remission of sin. Acts 2:38. So what it boils down to is we either believe what God says or we believe what we tell ourselves, what false teachers tell us or what Satan tells us. 1 Timothy 4: 1,2. 2 Timothy 3: 1-9, 2 Timothy 4: 3-4.

  36. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 18, 2015 at 6:59 pm

    Let’s not forget Krishna!

    But to my point, or perhaps, question:

    As Christianity came to be, many years after the crucifixion of Jesus, the Jews started losing adherents of their religion to Christianity, and to other religions.

    Now, according to your position on your faith, are all the other people who worship any of the other world’s religions, not capable of being redeemed by their respective religion(s)?

    And if so, why does that make it any better than the other religions? I’m not being facetious, but to realize that there are so many variations of religious faith, that espousing to have THE Only TRUE God as one’s God, mocks the other religions as false!

    How can Judaism not be True?
    It’s Abrahamic!

    True, believing in a God, almost automatically suggests the acknowledgment of an opposite power/force, ie: Satan, Devil, Beelzebub, etc…

    I’m well aware of the duality of Nature’s forces, and the eternal dance of opposites, and I’ve found peace by observing Man in his foolishness. Which never ceases to amuse both God, and me.

    “Once you name it, you own it!”

    I truly appreciate your sincerity on the subject, and I hope I’ve not inappropriately challenged your beliefs.

    Thanks!

  37. Comment by Johanna on February 9, 2015 at 2:24 pm

    Yeah, appeal to bigots, that’s the ticket. Sorry, but that’s a dying demographic.

  38. Comment by Terri Kinney on February 9, 2015 at 2:39 pm

    You think the churches that are growing are bigot churches, and the shrinking ones are the true Christians? Seriously? Isn’t that just sour grapes? The religious left is losing the members, so you label the religious right as bigots. That’s not very deep, or correct, analysis.

    FYI, we are not a “dying demographic,” the average age in evangelical churches is considerably lower than in liberal ones. Also, the liberals have few kids. The combination of the elderly and homosexuals in liberal churches would qualify as a “dying demographic.” Incidentally, we have higher percentages of ethnic minorities too.

    Churches aligning themselves with the secular culture are loser churches in every way.

  39. Comment by creek house on February 18, 2015 at 2:45 pm

    Actually Terri the dividing line is drawn between believers and followers of Jesus and people with itching ears who heap up teachers for themselves that tell them their sin is okay. 2Timothy 4:3.

  40. Comment by Russ Dewey on February 9, 2015 at 6:58 pm

    Spong and Borg et al. have one distinctive goal: to make Christianity consistent with modern scientific knowledge. This means removing the supernatural elements. This would be the stuff of schisms except they don’t believe in being divisive or nasty to anyone, including fundamentalists. It has been, what, 16 years since Spong wrote Christianity Must Change or Die, and his main point was that the three-layer world of the Bible can no longer be taken literally, evolution is true, etc., and (bottom line) old-time religions cannot thrive in the future if they deny scientific knowledge. Agree or disagree, that’s where the “schism” between conservative and progressive Christianity is forming, and I don’t see it going away. Now, it could be that Mark is right in implying that institutional churches cannot survive de-literalizing. If so, in ten years or so most institutional churches will be left to fundamentalists (as those not inclined to supernatural beliefs leave religion or find online alternatives).

  41. Comment by dogged on February 12, 2015 at 7:55 pm

    Spong authored “Christianity Must Change or Die”. That’s an interesting pronouncement from a man whose Episcopal diocese lost nearly half its membership during his tenure as bishop.
    Old Bishop Spong seems to have perfected the dying part; therefore I am very skeptical about his vision of “change”.

  42. Comment by Russ Dewey on February 12, 2015 at 9:46 pm

    Time will tell! Many conservative bodies are talking about how healthy it is to prune. We will see what grows sustainably in the future. You can check out Spong any time on YouTube. He is absolutely not what most readers of this site would like, but that could be interesting I suppose.

  43. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 17, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    Spong is not a Christian but claims to be. That would qualify as a valid reason why “he is absolutely not what most readers of this site would like.” An open agnostic could be respected, but an agnostic who insists he is still a Christian is a liar and a hypocrite.

  44. Comment by Russ Dewey on February 19, 2015 at 10:32 am

    You could only write that if you haven’t read his work! I will grant you, though, that he wishes to take the supernatural out of Christianity. If that disqualifies him, then you have just defined Christianity as a belief system that is incompatible with modern science. That is what Spong worries about. You may not see that as a problem for Christianity, but he thinks that if Christianity requires people to disbelieve in evolution and other scientific findings, it will be fatal to Christianity in the long run.

  45. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 19, 2015 at 10:49 am

    So, churches that do not believe in the supernatural are growing and churches that do believe in the supernatural are declining? Odd, since Spong’s diocese LOST members while he was bishop.

    Please post some hard data to back up your assertion that the supernatural-free churches are growing.

    I’ll be happy to post some hard data that proves the exact opposite. Based on that data, I’d say that Spong’s denomination, the Episcopagans won’t even exist in 20 years.

    I’ll await your data with baited breath. Oh, and FYI: your assertion that a person can’t believe in modern science and in the supernatural is a crock.

  46. Comment by Russ Dewey on February 19, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    I’m defining supernatural as things that contradict science, such as creationism. Can people believe in modern science and supernatural things like ghosts? Sure, they just don’t let the two mix. Spong does not think that is viable. You apparently do. I don’t. I agree with Spong that if the church insists on denying scientific reality, it is on the way out. As I said in my earlier post, time will tell whether Spong or people like you are correct. I meant that. I don’t think you can tell now. So wishful thinking predominates. I also don’t think the future of progressive Christianity is necessarily in church buildings so much as it is online and in books, which is another evolutionary change you probably don’t like. You have good company on sites like this. A lot of conservative religious bloggers assume that the “decline” is just a temporary setback. We will see, but not for a while. Come back in ten years and everything will be clearer. I’m happy to leave it at that, knowing I cannot possible change your mind, but I would encourage you to sit through a Spong lecture or two on YouTube to get a more accurate view of what you are hating.

  47. Comment by Tim Vernon on February 21, 2015 at 6:05 pm

    I gather you don’t know any evangelicals. I can assure you that most are not creationists nor do we believe in ghosts. Apparently the pleasure in reading Spong is that he strokes the egos of his readers – “Look at those DUMB evangelicals, they believe the world was made in six days, the morons!” that is not only grossly inaccurate, but also un-Christian. Intellectual snobbery can’t coexist with faith. “We’re smart, you’re stupid” isn’t much of a religion, which explains why the liberal churches are dying on the vine. People can sleep in on Sunday mornings, they don’t need to drag themselves to church in order to feel intellectually superior to evangelicals. Spong, Bork, and others are pew-emptiers.

  48. Comment by Russ Dewey on February 21, 2015 at 8:16 pm

    No, Spong is actually a devoted Christian and he follows the scholarship closely. I know it goes against all your prejudices, but I think he is motivated by wanting to believe what is true, and he obviously thinks science and Biblical scholarship both have something to say about that. No offense intended.

  49. Comment by Dan Horsley on February 22, 2015 at 4:47 pm

    There are many thousands of Christians who work in science and medicine. This meme of “evangelical Christians are anti-science” is a crock. The evangelical school I attended has a top-notch pre-med program, also strong in archaeology, chem, bio.

    There is no “scholarship” involved in being a Christian, you either repent of your sins, or don’t. There will be plenty of clergy and PhD’s in hell.

  50. Comment by Russ Dewey on February 23, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    I respectfully disagree with that last part, and it seems to be a “wedge issue” between progressives and conservatives these days (whether Biblical scholarship is relevant to the beliefs of Christians). Biblical scholarship IS relevant when it clarifies who the original writers were, their cultural context, and what they meant. Spong’s lectures on the Gospel of John are a great example of this. What I’m finding is that evangelicals will not engage on that level. They act scared and they chuck stones from a distance. I can tell from his comments that Tooley has lacked the courage to actually dive into Spong’s work and see what the man has to say. And this is one of the influential guys in your field! The problem (as I see it…again: I’m not expecting to convert you to my way of thinking, but I can’t resist trying to set things straight) is that you arrived at your truth first, in childhood, in a fixed form, and then your job apparently is to defend it. People who study the scholarship are not assuming they already know what they will find. They go into with the attitude of scientists, open to the truth. I also agree that evangelicals can be religious; all you have to do is “compartmentalize” and refuse to subject your religious ideas to the same sort of critical scrutiny, fact-checking, and reality-testing as your other ideas. But if you do seek to explore the historical facts about the Bible and Jesus, it turns out there is this huge and fascinating body of work, very interesting, based on good logic and arguments. Now, the one reason for not plunging into this (available readily on the internet) is fear that your childhood framework might be threatened. That is a huge disincentive.

    Now, if the shoe doesn’t fit (this does not describe you) then don’t wear it. I’m also (unlike so many conservative commenters!) NOT saying I hate you, or that you are damned, or that you are a bad person trying to do bad things. That’s because I don’t fear you or your perspective. It seems extremely easy to understand! Everybody grew up with some sort of belief system, and naturally it seems ultimate and true as a child. I completely understand that. I also understand that if you taught that it is sinful and bad to challenge or investigate or research your religious assumptions, you are not going to want to do it! Is it any mystery why those elements are always found in fundamentalist religions of EVERY type? They all warn against doubt and heresy, and they all excommunicate people who insist on questioning things. It’s the only way to keep the stable system going. No mystery there. But when people are asked to maintain a system and not challenge it, they regard others with the courage to ask basic questions (like Spong) as bad and damnable, instead of courageous and truth-seeking.

    The result is columns hurling insults from a distance like Tooley does to Spong.

  51. Comment by Jennifer P on February 9, 2015 at 8:33 pm

    Churches that proclaim and worship Christ grow. Those that don’t die.

    Two points for thought:
    1. The decline in mainstream Protestantism (liberal Protestantism) can be traced to the social justice movement of the early 20th century. Whenever “justice” has a modifier it ceases to be justice and becomes politically correctness.
    2. I am familiar with an inner-city Catholic parish that had a very liberal, pro-gay, pro-Left pastor. It was nearly dead. The pastor hit 75 and retired and in comes a 50 year old priest who led the worship service exactly according to the book and preached only on the Gospel. In three years attendance almost tripled and so did the collection. By making the church all about the worship of Christ this pastor grew the church.

  52. Comment by MarcoPolo on February 13, 2015 at 8:03 pm

    “Equal justice”, “Social Justice”… yeah, we wouldn’t want to distinguish the word: Justice, for those articles of law that make living in a free country possible!

    However, I do agree that there will be churches that still preach the Gospel as it has been preached for more than a thousand years.
    But how do you reconcile an ancient text with Science?

    I don’t think they are at opposite purposes. I just see this moment in time as a period of schism for some denominations. I don’t see how that isn’t inevitable.

    With all due respect for those who wish that nothing change in their religion, I wish you all well. There’s room for everybody!

  53. Comment by disqus_A97A9EPYY2 on February 9, 2015 at 11:16 pm

    Churches (aka Christian clubs) deny the Creator-ship of God, the authority and God-ness of Christ, the personal nature of the Holy Spirit and the image-ness of Man and wonder why they have declining membership. Could it be because there is no Truth among them? Certainly so.

  54. Comment by dogged on February 12, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    Long before the hip leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) took upon themselves to redefine orthodox sexual mores, I departed the ELCA , the church body that had baptized, confirmed and frankly imparted me with a catholic understanding of the faith.
    Since the swinging 60s, the church of my Baptism, the once Christ-centered ELCA, marketed itself as a prophetic sounding board for the leftist policies of the Democrat Party. Nuclear disarmaments & freezes, women’s “reproductive health” issues, a zealous LGBT advocacy, open borders, redistribution of wealth, racial & ethnic quotas—-You name it and they were out there painting a pious veneer onto some very thorny secular movements. Jesus morphed into some sort of barefoot Marxist hawking “social justice”. Liberation Theology and hard Left political theory merged.
    But the membership of Liberal Protestant bodies is in a dramatic stampede—right out the door. Bad karma perhaps?

  55. Comment by Supertx on February 15, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Is the size of the church ever to be the main focus? There seems to be an obsession with church planting and growth, but it is all for naught built on the latest trend. What good has been accomplished when you gain 1000 new members by telling them whatever they want to hear, whether it is sound doctrine or not?

  56. Comment by creek house on February 18, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Mark Tooley, I really appreciate this article. The subject, as you know, has been a source of pain for the church since the beginning; yes, since Adam and Eve rebelled against our Lord, the head of our church. I’m happy to see God continually bringing it up in an effort to separate the wheat from the tares. Most people in the comments, it seems, have been very open to understanding Gods position on sin. Some choose to close the ears they have and so do not hear the truth but they do so with some dignity and consideration, which is refreshing from the usual backlash.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.