Is the American Church Really in Decline?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Sun, November 23, 2008
- Viewed 197
- (43) comments so far
% of Americans Who Belong to a Local Congregation
1776—17%
1850—34%
1906—51%
1926—56%
1980—62%
2005—69%
Stark says that the Puritans were actually a very small minority of the people who settled in the new world. European church attendance was dismal, and many settlers brought their religious habits with them. Thus, only 17% were connected with the church in the early years of our country.
Even since the 1950s, when more modern research started, Stark says that the combination of Gallop, Baylor and General Social Survey polls has found that actual church attendance has remained steady overall. The only thing that has really decreased has been Catholic attendance (and that was due to the Vatican II ruling saying that it was no longer a sin to miss mass). In fact, according to their numbers, 36% of people attended church regularly in 1973. By 2007, that number had stayed absolutely the same: 36%.
Those numbers are totally different than many studies released by well-known Christian organizations that have caused major alarm in the church over the past years.
Who should we believe? Stark’s research makes a lot of sense to me. As Solomon said, ‘there is nothing new under the sun.’
But really, should any of this research make any difference to us as we conduct our ministries? Probably not. We all are full aware of the pressing need to reach the unchurched in our communities. Hearing and believing that there are more unchurched now, and that we are losing the battle, really does none of us any good.
The good side: Maybe the American church is not in as big of a crisis as some have painted it to be. We must just be as innovative and hard-working as ever to make a dent in the number of unchurched where we live. That is where the difference really takes place.
What do you think?
Todd
A couple of weeks ago, Bob Buford gave me a book entitled “What Americans Really Believe”. This new book, written by Rodney Stark had enough content in chapter one to write a bunch of articles. Today, I want to briefly discuss what Stark, who is a researcher at Baylor University has found about American’s and their church attendance.
I’ve heard that 87% of statistics are made up on the spot. And I think that may be true. But some of Baylor’s research findings really fly in the face of what we’re hearing in most polls coming out of the Christian community. Here is one of the declarations of this book:
The percentage of Americans that belong to a local congregation is actually INCREASING in the country. In fact, church membership is much, much higher in 2008 than it was, even in revolutionary times.
Stark shares research done for the book “The Churching of America, 1776-1990,” which went through an elaborate study to actually see what church membership has looked like throughout American history. Here’s what they found:
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Brad Boydston on Mon, November 24, 2008
It depends on what you’re measuring and how you measure it. David Olson (who isn’t really an alarmist) makes a pretty convincing case in The American Church in Crisis (Zondervan, 2008) that American church growth is not anywhere near keeping up with the growth of the American population.
Peter Hamm on Mon, November 24, 2008
FIrst off [and that was due to the Vatican II ruling saying that it was no longer a sin to miss mass]. not so, afaik. I grew up Catholic post-Vatican II. It is still a sin to miss mass unless there are extreme circumstances (like being totally snowed in).
But the way to truly measure the church and it’s “decline” or lack thereof is to measure what Christ said would mark us as Christians to the world, our love for one another. But i don’t know how to “measure” that in a survey. I doubt anyone does.
This is merely showing how much easier we’ve made it to be a church member than it was in the late 18th century and 19th century.
Fred on Mon, November 24, 2008
It depends on what you call the church. I understand the church as invisible and visible. Jesus said there will be MANY that will say lord, lord, but He will say depart from me , I never knew you. Is America more soiritual? Yes. But that does not equate to true conversion. Is the church expanding ? Sure is, but I have a hard time believing all these people are Christians in the true sense. Our Country would not be on the course it is if this were true. Many, many goats and false sheperds leading them in he ways and philosophies of the world. Do not be deceived.
Randy Bryan on Mon, November 24, 2008
The real issue is not how many people “attend” church, but how many of them are born again. If the Lord called all true believers home today, I believe many churches in America would have very few of their “members” missing including their pastors. Let’s be for real. Most of those who followed Christ around were not really converted. Most of them either wanted Him to meet their physical needs for food or physical healing, or they wanted to be entertained by His miracles much like most of those who attend church today. Very little has changed in 2000 years. Jesus repeatedly taught that only a few would make it into the Kingdom. Jesus said rhetoricallly, “When the Son of Man returns will he find faith on earth?” God has never had more than a small remnant of true believers on earth at any given time. When Elijah got on a pity party and complained to God that he was the only man who was not worshipping idol, God said that he had 7,000 men who had not bowed a knee to Baal, a very small number in a nation of millions.
Paul on Mon, November 24, 2008
It’s pretty obvious that if 69% of Americans are church members but only 36% attend regularly that using membership data is completely irrelevant as an indicator of church health.
Does “membership” have any meaning at all if churches are OK with their members not even attending services regularly (much less serving, discipling others, sharing their faith)?
Andy Rowell on Mon, November 24, 2008
I just posted on this as well: Weekly U.S.A. Church Attendance: The Sociologists Weigh In
http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/2008/11/weekly-usa-church-attendance-the-sociologists-weigh-in.html
In short, I think Todd is right to say that what really matters is the specifics of which churches are declining which these number don’t tell us. As all of us who are involved in church leadership know, church growth is very complicated.
Stark in What Americans Believe does not give a lot of evidence for his take that church attendance is staying the same beyond people claiming that they attend church is staying about the same (but he quotes his other book, The Churching of America, which I haven’t read. Brad above quotes the Olson book which is as slim in methodological rationale as Stark. But Olson has a point—that most of the main denominations are declining in attendance.
I give you snapshots of all the latest sociological research in my post. In short, around 35% of people claim to attend church regularly and about 22% actually attend church; the former number has stayed relatively constant; the latter seems to have declined a bit but it is impossible to know for sure. With 33,000 denominations, it is difficult to get exact numbers.
Warmly,
andy
Andy Rowell
Doctor of Theology (Th.D.) Student
Duke Divinity School
Durham, North Carolina
Blog: Church Leadership Conversations http://www.andyrowell.net/
Wendi Hammond on Mon, November 24, 2008
Interesting. With some denominations “belonging” translates into membership, which might mean little about regular attendance. And even with regard to attendance, I’ve heard that in America, people who attend just 20 times per year consider themselves regular attenders.
The other statistic I read and heard numerous times while in seminary (2006) is that the number of American churches in decline is growing significantly (sorry, can’t cite sources this morning). More close their doors each year than are planted. I’ve also heard that a very high percentage of church plants don’t survive past 5 years (do some of you church planters know if this is true, and if so, why).
My sense is that these stats and the ones Stark notes in his book could both be true. People ARE interested in the things of God but they are looking for something (I’m gonna say the “R” word) - - - RELEVANT. Something that changes their lives and helps them understand how they can change the world. So church attendance could be growing while at the same time, irrelevant American churches that make no real difference die every year.
My thoughts this morning –
Wendi
Chris Forbes on Mon, November 24, 2008
Todd, I have found people in the church don’t seem to enjoy hearing how good things might be going. It is far more interesting to deconstruct the existing churches and talk about how bad things are in society. (Might be an byproduct of our Americanized eshcatology. Things have to go from bad to worse to fit the popular presuppositions. But, preachers too often make lousy social forecasters.) Personally, I feel the ‘relevant church” movement is in far more danger of extinction than the traditional church ever has been. People who get their missiology from Starbucks won’t always be around IMHO. http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/images/smileys/grin.gif
Peter Hamm on Mon, November 24, 2008
I’ve seen plants fail and I’ve seen them that should have failed (bad grammar I know). imho, here are some key reasons.
1. Not enough planning and realistic expectations of what should be done
2. Church doing nothing different from surrounding churches.
3. Churches planted in “wrong” spots, i.e. well-churched areas.
4. Leadership that does not dedicate itself and revisit reason 1. Figure out what they really need to do to make it work.
I have seen a plant where the planting group didn’t move to the community but rather commuted (nearly an hour) every sunday to the rented church facility. I don’t know how that one is doing today, but it was struggling in a BIG way after being planted for several years and experiencing nothing but stagnation it seemed. Hint: If you don’t move to the community you want to plant a church in, you aren’t planting a church, you are merely starting a “mission”. (That area was also, imho, pretty “over-churched”. There were about a half-dozen churches within a mile or two drive from the rented facility.)
Back on point. You get what you measure. Measure church attendance and that’s all you get. Find a way to measure discipleship… for us that’s how many people are in the Word daily (we’ve adopted New Hope’s “Life Journal”), and how many people are “being the church” and serving beyond themselves inside and (more importantly) outside the walls of the church.
Cindy K on Mon, November 24, 2008
I am going to go out on a limb here and ask:
“What can be more relevant than the Word of God?”
I’m serious. I’m fairly new to this as some of you may know - Thanksgiving eve will celebrate my 3rd year as a saved Christ follower, but I keep hearing this ‘R’ word, and usually it’s associated with some new Church marketing scheme.
I don’t mean to be flippant, and I don’t mean to be obtuse. But I never in my life read anything more relevant than the Bible.
Great marketing may improve ‘numbers’ for a time, but it seems to me in all my inexperience that only the Word will make disciples and keep the ‘numbers’ up.
Fred on Mon, November 24, 2008
Wendi,
Thanks for your thoughts. I would like to know when was the Word of God not relevant? Also, I do not think that the church is to change the world. Only God can do that and he does it through changed lives, lives redeemed by Christ. The church is just a gathering of those believers to hear the Word , partake of the sacraments, pray collectively and to minister to each other. We as individuals are to go into all the world and make disciples. For most of us that means right where we are, home, work and neighbors. It is not the church’s main responsibility. The church exists to edify the saints so that they are equipped to go into the world. Are you saying that we do this better than in the past? I would strongly disagree. Most Christians today do not even know the tennets of their faith and could not defend it against an attack by an atheist, a Muslim, a JW or a Mormon. We are not being relevant except to our cultural whims and that is not the relevancy we need. It may well be the relevancy we most need to disgard.
Lynn on Mon, November 24, 2008
I travel full-time as a speaker in churches and retreats. I talk with a lot of leaders. In my opinion, we have far more converts than disciples. The word of God is very relevant but it doesn’t have to come across as a boring theological lesson. That’s another story for another day.
In pondering the statistical info given: the groups in 1776 certainly were not organized and travel was pretty tough the first 75 years unless you lived near a church.
Also, having worked in/with many denominations, there are MANY that list hundreds more on their rolls than actually come to the church. A new guy became pastor of a large church in the city in which I live. He was shocked to find they had 5,000 on the rolls and an average attendance of 1,000. That church began an aggressive contact program to find out whether these people needed “encouragement”, had moved or had changed churches, etc. The number of members on rolls, spiraled downward. The pastor is very evangelistic and discipleship oriented. The church is now growing like crazy.
We must return to evangelism, discipleship, true teaching of the word showing it’s relevance to life and yet dying to oneself.
Bruce on Mon, November 24, 2008
I would disagree with Stark’s assessment for the simple reason church attendance does not equate to salvation. George Barna wrote a book several years ago entitled “True Disciples” (I believe) and stated that 4 in 10 people sitting in the pews are not saved. Brings new meaning to the story of the wheat and the weeds in the Bible. His analysis was based upon the way they answered the questions about the gospel. Many of them would say that Jesus is the only way that a person can get to heaven. Then they would turn around and say that they had to work to get to heaven or there were other ways to get to heaven. So church attendance is not the best barometer for measuring the decline of the church. We are losing ground as we are not keeping up with the rate of growth even in America. We are losing our influence in the public spectrum as one can tell from the course of recent events. I believ the church is in decline with the exception of the Mega churches where people can hide and not be involved except by showing up on a Sunday. If we really want to see what would happen every Mega Church should divide themselves up into several smaller churches strategically placed throughout a community to impact every neighborhood in the city. Instead of a come hear mentality it would be a go and tell one. But that will never happen because too many churches are built on the charisma of a leader rather than that of Jesus Christ. Just my thoughts, what do you think.
Jerry on Mon, November 24, 2008
I think some of you are missing Wendi’s point about relevance. The Word of God will always be relevant, but some people need to see how to apply His word in today’s society. They need to hear how to move from the agricultural examples of Jesus’ words and fit them into today’s surroundings that are decidedly not agricultural. They need to hear how to live today’s life in the light of God’s Word and principles and then grow in wisdom so they can teach others the same.
Churches today need to focus on making disciples - that’s always been the case since Jesus gave His great commandment. Disciples are more than just members of the church - they are the ones who go out and serve while continually striving to allow themselves to be conformed to Christ’s image by studying the Word. I like the idea of the “Life Journal” at New Hope. It’s a great idea to instill displine in their discipling.
Larry on Mon, November 24, 2008
RE: your last statements: [“We must just be as innovative and hard-working as ever to make a dent in the number of unchurched where we live. That is where the difference really takes place.”]
(And RE: the terms “churched” or “unchurched,”)
I don’t think it’s enough to try to measure faithfulness to the collective number of institutional, corporate American organizations (for which we use the word “church.”) I can’t imagine Jesus and the Apostles spending much energy on a “census” (like the Roman government) and counting the number of people gathering at synagogue and in the gatherings. The Gospel writers made observations of the size of the groups and God included these descriptions of the explosive growth of the early Jesus-followers but it wasn’t about “building institutions.” It was descriptive information so the reader could appreciate the magnitude of God’s activity in human spirits in those 1st Century groups. And they seemed to have a clear understanding of the difference between “organizational leadership” (guiding organizational administration) and “spiritual leadership” (influencing human spirits.) (See Acts 6.)
I feel that what’s really important can’t be measured - only observed. It’s personal faithfulness to “the church” (the body) which would mean faithfulness to each other, in following HIM and allowing our spirits to touch each other with love, joy, peace, patience, meekness, faithfulness, etc. Again, reflecting on your last statements - Is the issue that “makes the difference” (your words) weekly attendance at the institution or is it becoming an apprentice to Jesus, producing real changes in our spirits?
RE: the word - “Christian” - it’s only used 2 or 3 times in the New Testament, describing how outside observers saw these early Jesus-followers. The term isn’t used by Jesus and Luke uses it in quoting King Agrippa’s statement of disdain, about becoming a “little-Christ.” But the word “disciple,” is used 269 times and in 1st Century context described one who was actively in relationship with Jesus, impacting their lifestyle as she/he physically “followed” Jesus around the streets and paths, and later found themselves actively doing life with other followers EVERY DAY to be in accountability and learning relationships. In 2008 American church life, saying one is a “Christian” simply means she/he is aligned with either an institution or a body of principles labeled “Christian” (e.g. the “Christian” agenda, pop-Christianity, or even intellectual belief in the Christian message.) It does not mean one has an ongoing relationship established with the person - Jesus Christ.
Dallas Willard has an excellent treatment of this in his book - “THE GREAT OMISSION.”
God wants to be in relationship with individuals. Since accurate knowledge is the first step toward establishing any relationship, there are, no-doubt more Christians than non-Christians who ARE already in relationship with Him. But I have strong concern about the cultural pre-supposition existing in our Evangelical Churches suggesting that winning them to our church is “where the difference really takes place.”
Thanks for listening to my “rant.”
Page 1 of 3 pages 1 2 3 >
Post a Comment