Loading ...Reflections on HCU Workshop
I was not able to spend the entire day at the workshop, but was able to hear the main speaker that interested me. I wanted to hear about a recent study concerning growth in the churches of Christ. It was an uplifting presentations. The presentation was also informative. Favil presented an balanced outlook on the future of the churches of Christ. It seems that we are growing at a 2.9 precent rate from 1980-2000. This seems good in comparison with the rest of the religious world. But the growth rate in America was 30 percent. Some more work must be done. Also, this growth rate mostly comes from baptizing our children and not reaching new converts. It also seems that we are keeping about 55 percent of our young people. One of the most interesting perspectives was concerning most liberal and most conservative congregations. Those that drop out of the most liberal churches, about 75 percent will attend a community church, while 25 percent will never step into a church building again. On the other hand, 75 percent of the drop outs of those in the most conservative congregations will never attend a church again with 25 percent attending another religious fellowship. Also, it seems that those congregations within the middle are doing the best job of keeping the young people in the fellowship.
On a doctrinal note, Favil stated “I do not consider those in the denominations to be enemies.” I hope I got the quote right. He also stated “I consider my brothers in the Christian Church to be erring like all of my other brothers in the churches of Christ to be erring.” This is not an quote verbatim, but a paraphase of his point.
Favil seems to be a balanced man from a balanced university. These comments would have created a firestorm at Freed-Hardeman’s Lectureship. One reason is the “preaching training school representatives there.” But these were made without strive or contention. I am sure some disargeed, but the atmosphere was not disargeeable. The middle is shifting within the church. Years ago, the denominations were seen as equal with a god-hater or even worst because of the false teaching that was presented. The Christian church was considered to be heading to hell because of the use of the instrument. Now it seems that the middle will not have open fellowship with the denominations, but will also not judge them as workers of Satan. There is more tolerance for these groups. Also, the Christian Church is being seen as part of the fellowship. There are differences, but overall there is a desire to be at one with one another. The middle is not changing some of the core doctrines within the churches of Christ but are engaging in dialogue with the religious world around us. It seems that the middle no longer want to be isolated from the general Christian world.
Related posts:
- Reflections on Pepperdine
- Reflections on Class
- Reflections on Lipscomb University
- Little Guys Shooting Big Guys
- Reflections on Heritage Christian University
About The Author
I love watching trends within the church.
I had Dr. Flavil Yeakley as a undergraduate teacher and your paraphrase of his comments regarding the Christian churches and other church fellowships is consistant with his teaching when I had him as a professor. Regarding those who leave our fellowship from the liberal (I prefer the word progressive rather than liberal) side seem to do so because they are no longer convinced that other fellowships are any more right or wrong than our own fellowship. I can sympathize with this view since I myself believe all Christian fellowships including our own have made both good qualities about them while also having some areas that could use correction. Why have I stay in the CoC and not left for “greener pastures?” Three reasons, in my study of Restoration History I saw the greatness of what restorationism was about (despite whatever mistakes have been made along the way). Regardless of our short-comings, I also saw so much good that the CoC has done. Without being proud of ourselves, God has accomplished some great things through us for his purposes. Secondly, I realized that there are no greener pastures. Whatever church fellowship one belongs too, it will have problems because all church groups are made up of people. If a person should decide to swith to another fellowship then that fellowship will have one more problem:-). That leads to my last reason. I realized that leaving would only create one more problem for another fellowship.
I believe that one approach to closing the back door is to remind people that just because they can participate with other fellowship does not mean they must leave ours. They can allow God to use them for his purpose right in the fellowship he has placed them in. But that require the focus to be shifted from the self to the greater cause of the gospel. People also need to know that whatever problems there are with our fellowship, they are part of the problem and if they leave they only become a problem for another fellowship that has its own problems. We need to think this way when we talk about the local church as well. I realize that there are times when leaving is a necessity (i.e., our integrity is violated) but most of the times, if we would choose to stay put we might just become part of the solution to whatever problem there is.
As for those on the far right. I grew up in a congregation like this and in my experience, the church was more interested in indoctrinating and regulating that indoctrination rather than developing a mature faith in God. Of the ten or so young people I grew up with, only two of us (which includes me) are faithful Christians involved in a local church. Is that any surprise?
Grace and peace,
Rex
Matthew,
You made some very interesting and insightful observations about the “middle” Churches of Christ.
Rex,
You made a good case for staying within Churches of Christ despite our imperfections. I hope to stay as long as I am accepted (which I hope will be my entire lifetime).
I’m glad to see a change of mind in many of the churches of Christ. I find it encouraging many consider the Christian churches (Independent) brethren, and not a group on par with the traditional liberal protestant denominations. This is not to imply the two churches will one day unite physically (doctrine is the same, but too many external differences), but hopefully grow closer spiritually.
I don’t limit my fellowship to just the Churches of Christ and Christian Church fellowships. When I lived in Ithaca, it was a culture where many lived without any sense of a Christian worldview. To believe that Jesus Christ was Lord and to actually strive to live by that confession was to be a minority group. As a minister, I found a group of ministers (they called themselves “Pastors”) who believed in Jesus and strove mightily to live by that confession. We met once a month for three hours to pray and build each other up in the faith. We also (along with the congregations we represented) collaborated for a prayer meeting for the National Day of Prayer that was focused on The Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of Matthew. These ministers came from fellowships such a Bible Church, a non-denominational Reformed church, an Assembly of God, a Free-Will Baptist, etc… As I encountered numerous problems in Ithaca, these ministers were their to pray for me and pray for the Ithaca Church of Christ. Two of their congregations helped support our coffee house ministry to the high school students. But when two of the pastors found out that my wife and I were struggling financially (I only had a p/t salary), without asking they freely gave financially enough money in the name of Jesus so that my wife and I could pay off the portion of the hospital bill that our insurance would not cover from our son’s birth and subsequent hospitalization for RSV.
The point I am trying to show is that these ministers in other fellowships (denominations – but sometimes that word seems to be used as a derogatory label rather than just a label of reality) believe in, love, and live for Jesus as much as anyone of us. Is there doctrine perfect? Of course not (and we never acted as though we agreed on ever doctrine). But is ours? I extended Christian fellowship to them (just as they did with me) not because they have every doctrine correct but because they live by the same faith I live by and because God extends that same fellowship to me by faith despite my incorrectness.
I think it is a big sham when imperfect Christians hope for God to be gracious to them and extend the fellowship that comes from being in a communion with God but those same Christians will not be gracious enough to extend that same fellowship to other professing Christians because their theology is not perfect. These Christians need to look in the mirror and recognize their own imperfect theologies. Doctrinal pride and all that comes with it seems to be antithetical to the beattitudal lifestyle that Jesus began his most famous sermon with.
Rex
When we will stop comparing ourselves to other religious groups for validation.
Flavil’s research is flawed. First the 2.9% is well within the margin of error for the data range even he himself will admit this. He also told the Christian Chronicle that the number was 1.6% for the same time period when not looking at adherents. What Flavil fails to understand is that the people who make up the vast majority of the churches of Christ the white middle class have not been having enough childeren to replace the existing generation since 1990. So it really does not matter. Just because some more may stay within in the churches of Christ than the Baptist does not mean we are doing something right or have a monopoly on truth. The churches that did his survey must have been hand picked because many large congregations I know of were not asked to participate.
If Flavil considers other religious groups to be enemies or not, when we compare ourselves to them and say we are doing better so we are doing what is right. That is perceived as pure arrogance.
Rex,
I think you have missed my point. Many liberal protestant groups deny the importance of the Bible and that Jesus is the only way. I am not denying fellowship to other conservative Christians. The Christian churches always teach the importance of being Christians only, but not the only Christians. In one night my church will host an all night event for youth from all over Columbia. It will include Methodists, Baptists, Church of God, and Presbyterian…. I am an elder at this church who promotes this kind of unity. Next time I write a post I will make sure to have absolute clarity on all that I write.
Hopefully one day Flavil and all others will realize that this expired method of denominational score keeping has done nothing but bring about division.
It’s heartening to see the move towards grace in attitude to other believers… Stone and Campbell would be rolling in their graves (so to speak) at the attitude that other denominations are the enemy, so great was their passion for unity in the Body of Christ.
I don’t know if you’ve read “Stages of Faith” by James Fowler, but I think his research provides interesting clues why conservative churches are more likely to “burn their bridges” with those who leave than more middle of the road churches. I think this can be related to the strong impulse to argue correct doctrine rather than allowing those with serious questions about faith time to sit with their questions. For questionning, and the desire to think faith issues through for oneself, is a pretty typical stage of young adulthood… a tendency toward dogmatism doesn’t help people through this “stage of faith” as Fowler describes it.
Andrew S,
I must have mis-communicated something because I was not responding to your post. I was just responding to a general willingness among many in the CoC to extend fellowship to others restorationist’s outside the CoC but still hesitant to open that fellowship up to other fellowships striving to take Jesus seriously. Like you, I find no fellowship with those who deny the historic confession of our faith. I am hesitant to use the words conservative and liberal, prefering to use the phrase “confessionally commited” for those who believe in the historic confession of Jesus and strive to live out that confession but whether that is a better way of labeling is for another discussion. I am glad that your congregation holds that youth night, for not only does it promote Christian unity but it also is an opportunity to influence Christians who may be missing something that we in the Restoration Movement and the CoC can offer (and I do believe we have something about Christianity to offer that others may be missing just as much as they have something to offer us). Any ways, I hope that helps clarify.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Joe,
I listened to Flavil Yeakley many times in my undergraduate and I never saw his research as “score-keeping.” Nor was is producing division. It simply made those of us training to serve churches in various means of leadership where the problems were, prompting us to ask the questions that might lead to a resolution of the problem. Though the problems are not resolved so easily (and we may create more problems than we resolve), I do see viable solutions begining to take place. For instance, the work of Flavil Yeakley and others prompted the leaders at the universities to begin looking at church planting again as a serious need and through the assistance of para-church organizations like Kairos, Mission Alive, and perhaps a few others, there new churches planted and some of those church plants are preparing to plant new churches. So I do see some value in what Flavil Yeakley and the other statiticians (sp?) do.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Janet, I read one of Fowler’s book, but it was in a discipline that I did not understand well. Is this book easier to understand?
I don’t know which other of his books you’ve read Matthew, (it’s the only one of his I’ve read) but I do think this one is quite readable.
He is an academic, and he doesn’t labour the point in terms of practical applications or how to apply the research in a local church… but I do see his findings as a useful a grid to use when responding to people pastorally.
Rex:
I have met with Dr.Yeakley on more than one occasion. I was actually a student at ACU when Dr. Galyn VanRehenan who is now the main guy at mission alive was getting started. Why would we plant more churches when most of the existing ones have failed? What very few of us have heard of, are the many church plants that have failed. I can list many for you. Most church plants wind up being mostly made up in membership from people who were previously members at other churches of Christ. They do baptize a few that assimilate into the church culture but this is a relatively low percentage. Many of my friends at ACU are now helping church plants with mission alive. When Flavil says that we have better attendance than all other denominations at (99% of membership), that is score keeping. It tells nothing of discipleship. People can be great attendees but be spiritually dead. This is why most of Flavil’s research is irrelevant. It is an expired method of measurement. We can have lots of baptisms and members and never make one single disciple. We can have more children remain as adherents of the churches of Christ but not really faith. The worst thing that Flavil’s recent research has brought about is the idea that we are really ok, the average little church of Christ listens to him and says to themselves; “I guess things are really not that bad”. Here is an example we can increase in membership and still not make disciples of all people. Most (not all) churches of Christ are overwhelmingly white middle class in a world that has been changing to be anything but that for the last 30 years. Religious researchers such as Flavil must rethink their paradigm and perspective, because we can measure well in all their methods and still be a group of people that are spiritually dead.
Joe,
I agree with you about the number of church attendance not equating with discipleship and discipleship should be our goal. However, nor matter how great or poor our level of discipleship is, making disciples will not happen apart from Christian community and so I do think there is some merit in understanding how much membership participation we have. The question should be now that we have X percentage of committed participants, what can we do make better disciples out of them (and us)?
As for church planting and the reason for planting new churches… The failure of existing churches to be evangelistic and disciple making communities (however great or small that number is) is all the more reason to plant new churches. The research that I have read indicates that church planting is the number one tool (if you will) for evangelism and disciple making. The reason is that a new church plant does not have all of the baggage from the existing church that impedes the goal of evangelism and disciple making. Will some of these church plants eventually fail? Yes but some will suceed as well. And even the ones that failed…at least they tried, for we cannot accomplish anything if we do not try.
So I am not trying to defend Dr. Flavil Yeakley’s research as the best thing since mom’s apple pie but I do believe there is some value to it. Like all statistical research, we must look at it with a discerning mind and ask how does this help us understand the bigger picture. As you have suggested, it might help us understand that we have a good number of partipants in our congregation but since nothing is said about discipleship then we might have a problem with leading our rank and file membership into mature disciples (especially given the drop out percentages). With this conclusion, we would then want to pursue more research on the discipleship angle in hopes of identifying the precise problem and finding a solution. So that is how I see Dr. Yeakley’s research as valuable…it gives us somewhere to start.
Grace and peace,
Rex
I agree Flavil’s research is better than nothing. Please understand I am for church planting. But we must learn from our mistakes. Planting a church that mirrors the one down the street that has failed for me is an exercise in futility. Einstein said that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. I don’t want to do the same thing expecting different results. Also Flavil’s research is a little hard to believe. He says that 99% of the members of churches of Christ attend. I have yet to find one congregation of which 99% of those in the directory attend on a regular basis. He also says the emerging generation has a divorce rate of 5.4%. This also simply unbelievable because the anecdotal evidence is just not there to confirm it. These are reason that I have such a hard time believing these numbers. Do I wan to believe them? Yes! But my traveling, education and experience can not let me believe they are true.
Joe, I agree that planting another congregation whose focus, goals, and values are played out in the same fashion will not work. One of the reasons I love what Mission Alive (led by Dr. Gaylin VanRheenan) and Kairos Church Planting (led by Dr. Stan Granberg) are doing is that they are not helping people plan the same run-of-the-mill churches. Both VanRheenan and Granberg are experienced cross-cultural missionaries (I believe they both served in Africa) as well as being gifted missiologists. They have brought their training and their experience in cross-cultural missions to the North American church planting scene, treating the postmodern, post-Christian North American culture as a different social culture than most existing Churches of Christ have been established in. I realize that some existing members of the Churches of Christ may quible with their philosophy to planting new churches, but in the end such churches are proclaiming Jesus Christ to a new generation, baptizing those who will confess belief in Jesus, and establishing new Christian communities that will carry forth the call to be witnesses to the ends of the earth — and that is good news!
Grace and peace,
Rex
The growth/decline rate of Churches of Christ in America have been within the margin of error for the last 30 years.
Try this: Collect all the bulletins you get from other churches for 13 weeks. Figure their average attendance. Then compare that average to the most recent reported number in Mac Lynn’s directory.
When I did that, I found that among the churches I knew, the margin of error was plus or minus 4%.
The numbers may be moving, but not nearly enough to indicate significant growth or decline.