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.

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.

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)?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.”

In defense of Wendi (not that she needs it) I really do not think that she is saying something is more relevant that the word of God, nor do I think she is saying something unbiblical when she says the church is to change the world. 

The scriptures instruct us that the church is God’s plan to reveal the mystery of Christ.  His intent was to use the church. 

To be relevant is not to change the word of God nor is it to not speak the word of God but rather to learn the language of the people. 

To fail to understand culture, the many we have here in the US and the many around the world and then to bring the word is to bring the timeless truths of God’s amazing grace to people in a different language and then blame the people who speak a different language for not understanding. 

I just returned from India, imagine if I preached in English without translation to Punjabi (where I was) and then got mad at the people who spoke Punjabi for not understanding the word.  To be relevant I needed translation. 

This is also true in how people respond and family structures and peoples histories.  I cannot effectively do ministry with Latino and Hispanic people groups in my area if I approach them as though they were like me.  I have to understand family structure, how to honor the father in the home, how to engage the children in what might be a duel language home.  (parents only speak spanish and children speak both English and Spanish)

It helps to know if they are Hispanic or Latino, it helps to know what part of the world they hail from, to know the reason they are here, to lean of family left behind… These all go to understanding the language of the culture. 

Relevancy is not about the word of God but about the language it is spoken. 

That said, I see huge decline in the church in my almost half a century of participation.

I don’t think the Church is in decline, but it’s definitely changing.  Your article says “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...” Do you mean “membership” in the traditional sense in that people have gone through a formal membership process or in the sense that they are regular attenders at a particular church?  I think that aspect of church has definitely changed.  What I seem to be seeing at our church are people who enjoy the worship, come fairly regularly, but haven’t necessarily plugged in to any ministries or classes.  Or, if they have plugged in, it seems to be into ministries that are outward focused like going out to the homeless or working in the neighborhoods.  Our in-house ministries seem to struggle for volunteers.

I attended the Whiteboard sessions (Spring ‘08) which was a church growth/church planting/church innovation conference.

I remember Mark Dever standing up and starting his talk with this statement:

“I come with no fresh ideas.”

An example of Dever’s call to “Who exactly is building the chuch...”

I like a good dose of Dever’s Godward perspective along with, for instance, a book like “unChristian,” which is more “sky is falling...”

Leonard said:

“Relevancy is not about the word of God but about the language it is spoken.”

Thank you.  And I apologize to Wendi if my words came off as some kind of attack. That is not how they were intended.  I was asking an honest question.  I normally see the word ‘Relevant’ in association with some kind of ‘cutting edge’ or ‘fringe’ outreach program.

And I agree with the number of people who have said that membership does not equate into disciples.  But in order for people to become disciples they must move forward on their own.  They must be hungry for the gospel, they must have a burning desire to serve.  And I can only speak for myself but that stuff all came from the Holy Spirit inside of me.

There was no sermon, or no Pastor, or no worship service, or no welcome video that could have done that for me.

I had and have to be the one that continues to move in the direction that God wants. I have to be the one that seeks God.  Not only on Sunday but every day.

And I would not know how to make anyone understand that.  But /that/ alone will grow disciples.

“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. “

Why does the contemporary church make such an issue of this and it was never an issue before? I believe it is because we are not teaching doctrine adequately. If Christ says feed My sheep, I understand that to mean people. The principles Christ taught cross agricultural/urban barriers. I work for a youth ministry that is global in scope. I have never seen this attention placed here on cultural relevancy in foreign countries. God’s Word is what it is and it applies just as is. Only here in America, where we pride ourselves in being pragmatic, business minded, technique driven is all this an issue and I fear an excuse for many things. I assert that most of this is of the world and that is precisely why we see this pragmatic growth in the church. The growth is in the seeker and emergent areas, not in the fundamentally strong churches of doctrine , the praeching of the Word and the delivery of the sacraments. Those churches grow as they always did---steadily and surely, not in phenomenally huge spurts unless there was a revival by God. I really do not se that happening. These churches are also the ones that the world hates.