In this video, Matt Chandler shares some wonderful insight into the mind of the younger community. Certainly one desires to reach into a community that is threatening to walk away and live life according to their own desires. Certainly one desires to reach out to those with unfulfilled dreams. Certainly no one desires to give up on an entire generation.
As I listened to the GCR Task Force respond to many of the questions at their open forum, it appeared, those on the panel went out of their way to defend their desire to reach the nations. Their defense came when questioned about their church’s Cooperative Program giving percentages. I do not know of anyone in the Southern Baptist Convention that questions any of the GCR Task Force member’s desire to reach the nations and no one questions anyone’s desire to reach the younger generation. What, I believe, is being questioned is the proper understanding of what is really happening within our convention and the younger generation of evangelicals as a whole. Is it rebellion or is it checking out?
I believe it is rebellion. In the Matt Chandler video he makes an excellent point about growing up in church and going to VBS. He also makes a great point about how morality can take the place of scripture in some church’s teaching methods. “Just be good and everything will be great” is what we were told through some teaching. I agree with him: that is moral deism at best. However, I have to question what churches in the SBC have taught that in the past? Are there church’s in the SBC that are teaching that today? I would like to know what churches, in the SBC, teach that if one will live a good moral life then God is going to bless that person with eternity in heaven just because they have been good. Also, if one lives this good moral life then nothing bad is going to happen to that person. Give me a list of church names that are teaching this aberrant gospel within the SBC today.
I did grow up in the kind of church that Matt Chandler described. There was a time in this church’s that the true teaching of the Gospel was rejected. I was taught, in this church, that as long as I was good and I would do good moral acts then God would bless me. I was also taught that if I would only look inside myself I would find that ability to do that good because basically everyone was good deep down inside. I believe it’s possible that our church was the one that made up the VBS song that Matt was taught and sang in the video. However, I found out early, in this church, that I could do good in front of people and it would be counted as being good and then I could do what I wanted after I was away from those people and still be viewed as good. We did have one pastor come that taught differently. He taught that were all sinners and deep down there was no one that was good. He even had the audacity to use a sermon illustration of little children and showing how they would fight over a toy as evidence they were selfish, which was bad. But, I rejected that premise at that time and continued on my own path of looking good for some and then doing what I wanted when I was not around them. I know, we call that hypocrisy. If we call that hypocrisy, which it is, then why do we not call walking away rebellion–which it is (1 John 2:19)?
I submit to you that we are missing a generation, not because we are not trying to reach them, but because we are not clearly spelling out what the issue is. Walking away from God is rebellion. Walking away from the bride of Christ is rebellion against God’s standard. We all have a rebellious nature that we have to guard. When my rebellious nature led me to reject the biblical teaching of our new pastor I began to walk away from the church and my heart began hardening to the gentle wooing of the Holy Spirit of God. You see, you cannot separate God from His church. I do not care what shape the local church is in, be it liberal, moderate, quasi-moderate, conservative-legalistic, or fundamentalist-legalistic it is still the visible body of Christ. There is a remnant in every local body of believers in a true church that have not bowed a knee to any other form of God. Today we have a generation that says they can do Christianity without church. It does not fit. Allow me to give just one scriptural example.
Every time the New Testament records a sabbath event during the life of Jesus, one will find Jesus in the synagogue. Before I am accused of relating the church to Israel, that is not what I am saying. However, what I am saying is the only form of corporate worship to the one true living God was found in the worship of the Temple and the Synagogue. Jesus sat there in the Synagogue every Sabbath and listened to some of the most misquoted references of His word and never checked out. If anyone had a right to walk away it would be Jesus. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit Paul, Barnabas, Luke, Apollos, or whoever you believe wrote Hebrews penned the words “Forsake not the assembling of yourselves together…” Thus, walking away from the church indicates that a relationship with God–through Jesus Christ, as a result of the Spirit’s wooing and the sinner’s conviction and repentance–was not formed that would be strong enough to keep one in church.
Some may say that they were saved and they checked out because the did not like what they saw in the church. While that sounds great and that seems to be a great point, it fails the scriptural test. Jesus never left the synagogue, and they tried to kill him after one sermon he preached there. At other times I have been confronted with the story of Peter and how he denied Jesus and Jesus restored him. This argument is given to explain how people walked away from Jesus after entering into a relationship with him and are restored after some time of backsliding. However, one fails to remember that Peter’s denial came before the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Does the scripture allow for backsliding? I believe it does. What is backsliding? That will take an entire post. For the sake of brevity I believe the scripture teaches backsliding as a temporary rebelling against a direction He directs a Christian. This checking out after youth group and sowing my wild oats until a new church starts that doesn’t judge me and plays the same kind of music I listened to in the bar the night before is not the same as Peter denying Jesus. According to Scripture, after Pentecost (the time the Holy Spirit began indwelling Christians), Peter never rebelled against the teaching of Jesus to the point that he denied Him or His bride. Were there further instances of disobedience? Certainly, Paul points out one such time in Galatians. Did Peter check out? No he did not, he stayed with the church though Paul publicly admonished him. If anyone, according to today’s society of excuses for leaving the church, had a reason for leaving a local church it would have been Peter.
When one “checks out” on the church and decides to go it alone the question is not as much about motive as it is relationship. If one has a relationship with Christ one will find a corporate setting, we call the local church, to publicly express that relationship. If one does not have a relationship with Christ, one will use any excuse plausible to rebel against the clear teaching of Scripture. If one’s motive is to influence the corporate decisions made in the local body then one will leave when that desire is not met. Thus, the motive becomes paramount in the relationship. Some will use the excuse that they were treated badly in a local church and they have now decided they do not need any church to worship God. I am not advocating that you have to be in a formal worship service in order to worship God. However, if one finds themselves in a church like the church of Ephesus, as recorded in the Revelation, and decides to leave because after the warning of Christ the church continues as if there was no warning one will probably leave. But, if one leaves a church like Ephesus one will find a church like Philadelphia without too much trouble and will do it in a relative short period of time.
I have been treated worse in the church after I became a Christian than I did when I was lost. When I was lost the church people did all they could to appease my desires. When I became a Christian I was told by those same people that my views were fanatical. Did I leave the church and begin doing things as I wanted? N0! I did stop attending that particular church, but I found another church and stayed with those who professed Christ and worked as brothers and sisters together for the glory of the Father.
It amazes me that when someone like me speaks about a holy lifestyle and how we need to admonish those claiming to be Christ followers that do not live such a lifestyle I am told that doing such does not show love to a brother in Christ or help him. I want to help Brothers that may be finding their way. However, these same ones that tell me to love a brother in Christ and help him are the very ones that leave the church because something does not go the way they desire. Instead of finding a church like the church of Philadelphia, many start a church to appeal to everyone else that does not like the church. These new churches grow, not on the firm foundation of new believers being discipled but, on the faulty foundation of disgruntled–soon to be church disciplined–member transfers.
Which brings me back to my original question. When one leaves the church are they Christians that are de-churching themself, or are they non-Christians that are rebelling against the clear teaching of Scripture?
Brother Tim,
I’m not sure I really have any answers to your question. However, for clarity’s sake, I would like to know if you are asking about young Christians leaving locals congregations altogether or leaving SBC congregations for other congregations?
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Brother Tim,
This is a good thorny issue in our culture of denominations in America and it has morphed into another type of affair within the SBC. I tend to believe that Christ followers rebel against their brothers and sisters in Christ and that pretenders leave or escape those against Christ. When John uses his famous line 1 John 2:19 “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.”… John is not referring to those in Christ, in fact he is referring to those that are anti-Christ. These anti-Christ folks still exist within the congregations today, although not all that leave are anti-Christ. Some Pastors like to think that though.
There are very few good reasons to move to another congregation in the same local, yet it can happen and it can be a good thing. If a Pastor is intent on preaching law only (you do this or else type messages), then he is leading his flock away from the gospel….where his message is void of Christ and approaching the same problem that the teachers of those churches receiving John’s epistles knew so well.
I have seen Pastors leave because their message was anti-Christ….. all the while they were preaching a new form of the law… thinking they were pleasing God. But the proof for us is in what John says a little later….1 John 4:20-21 “If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. (21) And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.”
So if we leave, do we love our brothers and sisters as we have been commanded to do. That law, when obeyed, was and is the most interesting when it comes to leaving, …because it is a law identifying those that are not of Christ. Rebel,…we all do…. When you leave…. Be careful you understand why!
Thought provoking post,…
Blessings,
Chris
second sentence should read.
……that pretenders leave or escape, “being” against Christ.
Tim,
There are several thoughts and questions I have been having along these lines but which I cannot yet prove.
1. Has there always been some degree of “dechurching?”
If the answer is that there is a much higher degree of “dechurching” then I would ask:
2. Has what would seem to be in our day a larger disconnect between popular culture (with its expressions in social norms, thought, communication forms and music) made it less desirable for young adults who are cultural Christians to remain in attendance?
And I am also wondering if:
3. If the breakdown of spiritual leadership in the home has led to a greater number of young people who are weaker spiritually and who grow up with this cultural disconnect with the existing body of Christ and who then consequently naturally abandon the church.
I would add one comment as a commentary to question 3: I have concluded that participation in the ministries that our church has to children is not a predictor of that child’s long term spiritual well being. The faithfulness of the parent’s to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (which may mean bringing them to our children’s ministries) is a far better predictor of that young person’s long term spiritual health.
Tim B,…very good insight.
Blessings,
Chris
Great post Tim. On the way home from the GCR mtg in Rogers, Ark., I asked my pastor and Min. of Ed., “When you graduated from Seminary and a state Baptist College did you go to your local(or national) Baptist leaders and insist that your Baptist organizations ‘change for your benefit’”?
If there was ever a generation that could have ‘insisted on change or I’m leaving’ would be those who graduated in the 70′s and 80′s. Clear documentation existed that we had unbelievers teaching in our Seminaries and we were clearly headed on the wrong path…fast! That generation of men/women are now in leadership positions.
As kindly as possible we need to look at this ‘new generation’ of graduates and say, “Seek to stay and change it if you believe that way”. My concern is that we seem to cater to the lowest common denominator to keep ‘some’ in the SBC.
Don’t lower your holiness standards for a fad or whim. God will honor it.
I, too, want to know what churches are teaching these things. Kind of reminds me of a pastor’s study group I am in. We have been reading Alcorn’s book on Heaven. The leader of our group exclaimed “Churches do not teach us that Heaveb will be a physical place like this book does. They teach that heaven will be floating on clouds.” I had to interrupt and say that is not what I was taught in local church, college, or seminary. Let’s face it, some people have a felt need to be exclusive, counter – “whatever.” Like those Paul met on Mars Hill who always wanted to hear some new thing. It is often rebellion in spirit.
KC said; “Don’t lower your holiness standards for a fad or whim.”
Those are wise words we should all consider daily, no matter our age or when we got out of seminary.
Brother FME,
I checked the moderation comments and did not see any from you. If this first comment is not all that you placed in the comment stream then I do not know where the others went. However, I would like to respond to this first comment.
You write; are asking about young Christians? That is the point of my post. Are those who leave the church, whether SBC or not, really Christians? I am not saying that because someone leaves a church they are not Christians. I am saying that the common denominator that makes someone “check out” on church altogether is the “someone hurt my feelings” argument. When I visit in people’s homes I refuse to sit there and hear how another pastor treated them badly or how some church member was allowed to have his/her way in the church. I will tell them that we are all human and given similar circumstances we would probably respond the same as the pastor or church member. I submit that many of the church plants today are focused on getting church members who have left church altogether. These church members probably are not Christians because one that loves Jesus will find a church in which to corporately worship.
Brother Chris,
I agree that we have some leave churches for good reason. My point is that they do not stay away from corporate worship. The will go to church someplace and worship our Lord. Your quote of 1 John 4 is also my point. Many who leave church and stay away literally hate those in the church who were seen in their eyes as “running” the church. I never advocate someone staying in a church where the pastor preaches something other than the Gospel. I believe I pointed that out in my article. One needs to leave the church of Ephesus, but one will seek and find the church of Philadelphia. And if they cannot find Philadelphia the will certainly find Smyrna.
Brother KC,
I have heard it said from seminary professors that they are tired of talking younger pastors back from leaving the SBC. My question is one of why are the younger pastors desiring to leave the SBC? If the answer is that they are hearing about all of the ineffectiveness of the SBC, then I have a serious concern. Where would a young pastor have heard of this ineffectiveness? In seminary and the seminary’s college. We should be concerned in a big way with that answer.
Brother Steve,
Like those Paul met on Mars Hill who always wanted to hear some new thing. It is often rebellion in spirit. What a great point.
Brother Tim B,
You have made a great point. The parents are responsible in bringing up the children. However, I will point out that today’s society you see parents following the children. Many parents I visit tell me; “if you have something that interests my child/youth then we will come”. I respond to parents all the time; “If you want a church to have a youth/children’s program then you need to bring your youth/children. It seems that if a youth/children’s program is in place the the parents will bring their children then they will gripe and complain that you did not do enough for their child when those children leave the church. What is totally amazing is these same parents will follow that child who rebelled against the clear teaching of Scripture to a church where they are told they are ok and it really doesn’t matter what they believe as long as they are in church.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I do think it is a mixed bag as to what is happening with the younger generation today. But I want to focus on a negative part of that mixed bag.
I’m not so sure if we should say they are *leaving* the church instead of saying they have already left.
It seems like there are basically one or two generations missing in typical SB churches.
I think when it came/comes to the WWII generation one of their strengths was/is their “sticking” with something. They weren’t/aren’t wishy washy to me.
However, we all know they are dying out and I’m afraid the younger generation is the exact opposite. I think the WWII generation understood/understands sacrifice and the younger generation understands consumerism/instability.
It’s not that I think the WWII generation is perfect. There is one particular weakness that they have in my opinion that I’m not sure I want to mention.
But think about what happens to someone who grows up in the typical SB church. They eventually end up going to “college” and don’t return I think.
And if they did not form meaningful relationships with the elderly, then I think it is easy for them to leave the church when they become adults to find a church with people “their age”.
Benji,
Your comment is thought provoking. Do you think that “target group” church plants back in the eighties had anything to do with what has happened/is happening?
Also, this generation is composed of the grandchildren and children of the “Boomer Generation.” Boomers did have their “day of rebellion” did they not? Then of course the Papa’s and Momma’s of the Boomers were the WWII folks.
When I think about all of this, I can’t help but wonder if it all does not boil down to; Some people have the gospel. Some people don’t. And in the end, the generation of origin is not the pivotal factor.
I almost want to say that was where Matt Chandler was going with his sermon. Of course, I don’t know that for sure. I know nothing of the guy and have never heard him speak before in my life.
I am sure you have. What do you think?
cb
cb
Brother Tim,
It seems that the earliest new covenant church member was intentional in being a member one of another expressed in their confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Many SBC churches today have the look and feel of a “members club” by way of complying with the company rules…so the basis for membership moves from “the confession” (that many actually have) to a broad set of “rules of membership” (which can vary and some are manmade.)
Benji brings up a good point about the generational differences, which plays into a younger generation not willing or very slow to adapt to rule sets,…while at the same time passionate concerning their confession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God. The younger may not be content with the institutionalized look and feel, especially if met with hate from inside the institutionalized church (your sitting in my pew syndrome).
There is not a lot to write home about in many of the dead churches throughout the SBC….
What should the younger generation do when dead keeps on being dead? Maybe this is the revival the SBC needs….as Christ removes the candlesticks from these dead and dying institutions within the SBC …where these churches have become callous and are not even open to the idea of Matthew 18 and restoration.
Blessings,
Chris
I cannot help but think about the days of the early 1980′s. I was new to ministry, conservative, and distrustful of the SBC’s direction. What changed me? I spent three years at Mid-America being encouraged about the SBC. Were there problems? Yes, but there were a great many successes. My professors were those who had served as SBC missionaries – home and foriegn. Our president, Dr. Gray Allison, encouraged us about the SBC. We were encouraged to increase Cooperative Program giving where we served. The Seminary promoted and received the Lottie Moon Christmas offering each year. On “Missions Day” we were challenged to be SBC missionaries.
Are there problems today? Yes. Where are the men who are promoting the good about SBC while working to correct what is wrong?
Steve in Montana
CB,
I’d encourage you take some of the things I say in this comment with a grain of salt.
I don’t think I know enough about target group plants to answer your question.
I think it is kind of like Wal-Mart taking away business from the smaller down town businesses. The “Big” churches have taken away members from the small SB churches I think. And a modern “Big” church can attract the younger generation with a great drama program, etc,.
However, my suspicion is that even the younger generation that has been attracted to a big modern church is still wishy washy towards the church they have been attracted to.
It is interesting tracing generations back to the WWII generation. It seems to me that the family structure started to break down with the boomers so that the breakdown has continued on to this day. And divorced [once, twice, thrice...] parents “revolving” around their children does not help in my opinion.
I think Tim G is right about the influence of parents. I was in youth ministry a good number of years. My opinion is that the ideal is for the youth minister [if a church is going to have one] to assist the parents instead of having to take the place of them in some sense.
Ultimately I think it does come down to who has the gospel, but I do think there is something to be said for social conditioning. Just as we can be conditioned by a Bible translation so I think different generations can be conditioned by their families/churches/societies.
And in particular, I think the familial instability/consumerist combination has had a negative impact on the young generation. I think it conditions the younger generation to be wishy washy and selfish whereas the WWII generation had to “fight” [i.e., sacrifice] for their country.
Hence, the WWII generation will show up on Sunday morning whereas the younger generation…?
God Bless,
Benji
Brother Benji,
It appears as if you and Brother CB are carrying on a great dialog. I’ll not interrupt but enjoy it from the sidelines.
Brother Steve,
You bring up an interesting point in your reference to the help you had in continuing/returning to the SBC. If the teaching of MABTS kept you in the SBC, then should we not expect the same thing out of our 6 SB seminaries?
Brother Chris,
What should the younger generation do when dead keeps on being dead? It seems that we serve the one who specializes in raising the dead. Why do younger generations not go to dead churches? If they are life and go to dead churches they bring life and life will breed life. It seems that light overcomes darkness.
Blessings,
Tim
Brother Tim,
Brother Wes had already fixed my comment. Thank you.
I think I do understand what you are saying. You are okay with brothers and sisters moving to a different local congregation is the Lord is leading (even if it is not Southern Baptist). Your concern is more with those who “abandon” God’s people altogether. Thank you for the clarification.
Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East
Benji,
I tend to agree with you about the “familial instability/consumerist combination” having a negative impact on this younger generation. I also think it has had a negative impact on older generations.
I think we are just now realizing the negative impact of easy divorce upon the structure of our society in both the secular and Christian cultures.
In addition, it is my opinion that we have sacrificed more than one generation upon the alter of hedonism in both secular and (c)hristian temples.
Tim
Great article, one comment. When Chandler talks about moral deism I can’t help but remember the words of Jesus in the Great Commission. “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;”
Yes, the gospel is to be preached and never assumed, but there is another danger coming from many of the emergents in forgetting to teach ALL that Jesus commanded.
CB,
You said:
“When I think about all of this, I can’t help but wonder if it all does not boil down to; Some people have the gospel. Some people don’t. And in the end, the generation of origin is not the pivotal factor.
I almost want to say that was where Matt Chandler was going with his sermon.”
I think that is EXACTLY where he was going. I find the discussion about the “younger” generation tangential, at best, to Chandler’s point. Regardless of generations, if people have been raised on a “do more, live better” message, the day will come when that message WON’T hold up. I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but it sounds to me like he’s pointing out that many times “grace” is preached for justification and “law” for sanctification. And regardless of the form it takes (fundamentalism, the liberal social gospel, the prosperity gospel), law can never live up to its end of the bargain.
Robin,
Is Matt Chandler “emergent” or were you making a general statement about the emergent church movement?
cb
Stuart,
As I said earlier, I know nothing of Matt Chandler. Yet, I do know that various people of all generations in this country have played fast and loose with the gospel.
Every generation had/has its “snake oil salesmen” of various stripes and strengths of venoms and that in itself has weakened and will continue to weaken the witness of local churches in local communities and hinder the impact of the Bride of Christ in the world.
Therefore, if Matt Chandler is calling for the preaching of the gospel and the whole counsel of God, I am for him. If he is to the “left” or the “right” of that, then we shall differ greatly.
At the same time, I do know Tim Rogers. I know he is for the preaching of the biblical gospel and the whole counsel of God.
So, if Matt Chandler is walking down the same street Tim Rogers is walking—just doing it without a “tie and white, pinpoint oxford shirt—I am for him.
cb
CB,
“I also think it has had a negative impact on older generations.”
I agree
CB
Thank you for giving me the opprtunity to clarify. No, I don’t think Chandler is emergent and I apologize for that being questioned. I could have said what I wanted to better.
I am not at Chandler’s church every week, but from when I have heard him, he down plays preaching all that Christ had commanded for a near absolute focus on the gospel. While I believe all sermons should lead to Christ who is the focus of divine revelation, we should also preach the full council of God. If that means, don’t lie, then so be it, but the authority behind that command will be shown as Jesus. I will also show forgiveness in Christ for lies we have told.
I’m not an expert on Chandler, but I’m confident he faithfully preaches Scripture.
I haven’t thought about the moral deism idea, but I understand what he is saying. How widespread it may have been could be another question.
If folks have also grown up with merely the “Let the little children come to me” side of Jesus and not the “eyes like a flame of fire” side, then I think the conditions them to have a lack of the fear of the Lord [Jesus Christ].
When it comes to Christ’s commands, I think we all need to take seriously John 13:34-35. When you think through the logic of what Christ is saying, it is certainly not poor sentimentality.
Robin,
I think that Chandler’s as well as others view is not that you shouldn’t preach morality but to preach morality apart from the Gospel is just what he accuses it to be. If we preach “don’t lie” then we preach that we shouldn’t lie through the Gospel, and not “don’t lie because it is bad” with no clarification which is what I fear some southern Baptists teach. They are willing to say “don’t lie” “don’t steal” etc… but with no Gospel connection.
In Christ
Joe Hussung
Robin,
As I said, I know nothing of Chandler. Therefore, I will leave him be and respond to your comment.
I believe we would all certainly say no one was ever more about the gospel than Paul, an apostle born out of due season.
It only takes a casual reading of his writings to see that he called upon his readers and hearers to live out the full council of God due to the effects oft he gospel. He most certainly directed his audience toward the particulars of a holy life.
I believe he wrote for believers to live a holy life due to the effects of the gospel, in the power of the gospel, and that others may observe how the truth of the gospel had/has “Religious Affections” in us.
Are we in or close to agreement here, Robin?
Matt Chandler is exactly correct in his take on moral deism and the response of Christians when bad things happen. That is what happens. Exactly what happens to most Christians.
They leave because of the reasons Matt Chandler gives.
Tim: You should begin listening to these heart broken people instead of turning them off. It happens more times that it does not. Another reason people are leaving the church. And it’s a biggie. IT should not ever happen.
I wanted to add to the last paragraph of my comment, to dismiss it is to dismiss an important sin, yes sin, that is in the church and is just as much sin as homosexuality or alcoholism, or any of the big three that moralists deem sin.G
And just about the time I was going to talk about Religious Affections, Debbie walked through the door with a short barreled shotgun aimed at Tim Rogers’ belly.
:-)
My anti-spam word is love.
CB
I think we are in agreement.
Wow, that was hard to type.
:-)
Brothers CB, Robin, Benji and anyone else not familiar with Brother Matt Chandler,
Click here for a link to another video on “Irreverent, Silly Myths” that might be helpful in understanding what type of preaching Brother Matt promotes. It may also assist in understanding his disdain for “moralistic deism” among God’s people.
Pleace to you brothers,
From the Middle East
Brothers & Sisters,
I want to call us back to the post. The post was not about Brother Matt’s message but about the theme of his message. I honestly do not know what his message was about because I do not have the full content. What I understood his message was about was the reason people de-churched themselves. I took that reason and questioned if it was de-churching or rebelling. I concluded a different understanding than Brother Matt and it was rebellion.
Now, did Brother Matt say things that I agreed with in the brief video? Certainly, he did. Was the result of these leaving the church the same? No, that is where I disagree with him. I say it is rebellion against a loving God who sovereignly placed us in the churches he places us. If I believe, as a Christian, God has led me to serve him in a particular church then I am there until God leads me to go to another church, not leave and never return to church. My point is that if God is leading in my life then God is not going to lead me to leave the corporate fellowship that the bible calls “assembling ourself together”. If one leaves that place never to return one is in rebellion.
Blessings,
Tim
How could anyone who reads the NT disagree with this?
“If I believe, as a Christian, God has led me to serve him in a particular church then I am there until God leads me to go to another church, not leave and never return to church. My point is that if God is leading in my life then God is not going to lead me to leave the corporate fellowship that the bible calls “assembling ourself together”. If one leaves that place never to return one is in rebellion.”
Brothers CB & Tim R,
AMEN!!
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Tim,
I believe that if this man ever pastors one church long enough to see a significant number of young people walk from his church and the gospel, he’ll disagree with himself, agree with you and repent of accusing many good faithful godly preachers of not preaching the gospel.
Tim B
FTME,
Thank you for putting me on to the clip of Matt Chandler.
And let me say, I know guys who have been preaching that same thing for over thirty years.
Also allow me to say the author of this post, Tim Rogers, has preached basically the same truth for a long time. I know this to be true.
I think any guy here would say A-Men to the clip. And I have said A-Men to Tim’s preaching the same thing.
It is all about the gospel or it is about nothing.
cb
Brother CB,
That, my brother, is a grand summary!
Peace to you,
From the Middle East
Tim: You can’t just solve the problem by saying that in a blanket statement that it is rebellion. In some cases I would say you are right. But this is not true in most cases. It is a matter of the church failing in these instances, not the ones who have left the church. IF you didn’t post this due to Matt’s message(which should be taken in full context) then the video is of no use. His message is one we need to hear as most of his messages are. If you would listen, you would either keep your opinion the same, which I would certainly disagree with, or you would change it. I think people such as yourselves are closing your eyes to the real problem when you make a blanket statement as people who don’t go to church are not Christians or they are in rebellion. Living in the real world, talking to many de-churched people, that just isn’t true, and they have legitimate and true reasons. We had better be listening or be in sin. That is out front there, but I stand by my comment. We are in sin. Not all those who are the de-churched.
Brother Tim B,
I believe you have clearly stated what I am trying to say. But, being the Baptist preacher that I am, let me add something.
If one begins a church to receive those who have left the church, then is the church plant in collusion with the rebellious nature of those who left? IOW, would the planted churches have for their foundation rebellious natured parishioners that will leave when their desires are not fulfilled?
Blessings,
Tim
Sister Debbie,
Against my better judgment let me say one thing. Your statement sounds good absent two things. One, I have given bible evidence to support my “blanket” statement of rebellion. Two, I was once a church member that de-churched himself. I left the first time because the church did not fit what I thought a church was supposed to be. I later found out I left and did not want to go back to church because I was lost. I later had church member to tell lies on me and do everything they could to destroy me and my family. Guess what! I wanted to leave church and not have anything to do with a church or church members. But, the spirit of God living inside of me and guiding me convicted me of my rebellious attitude and I ran hard to find the church God was leading me.
So, absent these two points I could agree with you. But, given just the first of these two points your position, as they say in redneck land, doesn’t hold water in a boot. :)
Blessings,
Tim
Debbie,
Ministering in a church that is experiencing a great growth from people who have been AWOL – so to speak – I hear many reasons given. I also hear that God finally got through to them and they decided to get off their seats at home and re-engage.
I think what you are saying actually works both ways and you cannot point at one without the other. And yet, I have parents that have stayed faithful through all kinds of garbage because of their relationship with Christ and would NEVER get out due to someone elses sin. In fact, isn’t that what the Bible says about not letting someone elses sin be our excuse for sinning? I think David said “MY sin is ever before me…” Psalm 51
Brother Tim Rogers,
If my memory serves me correctly Barna or the other researchers told us that the Boomers came back to church in the 80s as the churches changed to accommodate them. Then in the 90s they left again when those churches left them unfulfilled. You may in fact be correct in your hypothesis. Some will not remain. Perhaps some will come to grip with their rebellion and truly repent. The Lord has shown in His forbearance His power to use imperfect vessels to accomplish His glorious kingdom work.
Debbie:
You say that some people who no longer go to church but don’t anymore are not in rebellion, and they really are Christians, but that they have “legitimate and true reasons” for no longer attending any chruch. Could you give some examples of these “legitimate and true reasons”?
Let us relate this to the preaching of the gospel once more for Debbie’s sake.
Consistent preaching of the bloody cross and the glorious resurrection will cause many people to leave just like many ceased to follow Jesus when He was preaching to the multitudes. He turned to the twelve and asked them if they wanted to leave also. Peter responded by saying; To whom would we go? You have the Words of eternal life.
Churches have been commissioned to teach, and preach the gospel and everything Jesus has commanded. If my church does not teach that, then I must, by Christ command, seek for it to do so. If it will not, I must seek to find one that does and commit my life to helping it do so and continue to do so.
To do otherwise as a believer is to rebel against the plain teaching of my Savior. If that is the case I must repent of my rebellion and get back among His people. Otherwise I am a rebel and out of fellowship with my Lord.
The only other alternative I have is to realize I was never part of Christ in the first place. If I realize that I am not part of Christ and realize I am a lost sinner before a just and righteous God, I must repent and believe the gospel. If I do not, I continue to be a lost rebel against a holy God who sacrificed His Son for my sin. If I do so I will go to hell as a hopeless rebel against a righteous God.
Debbie, rebellion against the Word of God is still rebellion. We have no excuse. To remove oneself from obedience to God’s Word is the sin of rebellion, circumstance not withstanding.
I think this is the essence of Tim’s post. If that is the essence of Tim’s post there is no biblical argument against it.
cb
Roger: I believe I gave some real life examples in my last comment. I don’t always blame the person for leaving the church. The church today in many cases is a far cry from the church the Bible wants us to attend. Matt Chandler as I said was right on target.
CB: It’s not always those who leave that are in rebellion to the Word of God, which is my point. Sometimes it’s the church. Anything that is harmful to one spiritually should leave. It’s like being in a toxic relationship. Something has to go or the one in the relationship begins to die inside.
Tim: My answer would be the same to you as to CB.
Young people are smart. They haven’t yet been tainted by all the stuff we have as we get older. They can smell a hypocrite a mile away. They read scripture, and are pretty discerning.
Those who leave the church due to treatment are not wrong. They are actually quite right. If we can’t treat people kindly in church, it’s like at home, it hurts worse than the world mistreating them, because if they can’t be treated with kindness in a church, who is going to treat them well. The message doesn’t mean a thing if that person isn’t love unconditionally.
Debbie,
I would be interested to know what has “tainted” old people so much that they are no longer smart,cannot recognize a hypocrite a mile away,refuse to read Scripture and no longer discerning.
Sister Debbie,
Once again, against my better judgment, allow me to try one more time. You are taking the argument and applying it personally. I am not speaking about someone that gets hurt in a church and leaves to find another church. I am speaking about people who say they left the church all together because someone in a church in the past hurt them and they are not going to return to any church because of it. As I said in the article if someone leaves Ephesus because the church does not heed the warning, they will find either Philadelphia or Smyrna to serve.
So, to sum this up. I submit that one who leaves a church for any reason and does not look to find another church in which to serve is in rebellion they have not “de-churched” themselves.
Blessings,
Tim
Although Chandler uses the phrase, “moral deism,” it seems to me that it is equally possible, maybe more so, to describe the attitude projected in many churches as a variation of the prosperity gospel. Many of us warn against that style of religious consumerism, but we nonetheless speak of being in God’s will, and preach about God answering prayers, and we focus on those prayers healing the sick, allieviating problems we face, etc. At the same time, we rarely preach about God being with us even when we walk in the valley of the shaddows or are caught in the belly of the whale–in other words, God wanting us to be faithful even when we are in the midst of problems which may not go away. And when we do preach on it, we seem to focus on it as a short walk, and ending up on the beach. We preach about Jesus healing the sick even though there were many in that day who were sick, lame, blind, etc., whom He did not heal, and yet called to be faithful. We may preach about the firey furnace, but we ignore the words of Daniel 3:18. And how many of us–including me–have ever preached on Job 13:15, “Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him”? In other words, without intending to create a “class” of dependent immature Christians and “cultural Christians,” we have done just that by ignoring the fact that God expects faithfulness in poverty, in jail, in sickness, whatever. And by ignoring that, we have implied that God will always rescue us from danger. When that does not happen to them, I think it breaks the will of many and they walk away.
Or maybe I’m just in a gray mood this morning.
John
While I am ranting, I may as well add this: I agree that the “builder generation” or “the greatest generation” whatever you want to call them, as a whole tend to be faithful, and I salute them for that. But they, or at least some of them, also tend to be those who insist on church as “my way or the highway,” and accuse those who like praise songs and don’t find it necessary to wear a suit and tie to worship God of being sacrilegious. They are among the ones who say, “If the youth want a mission project, they don’t have to go to the far end of the county or halfway across the country, much less overseas. Let them come to my house and clean the gutters, cut the grass, or rake leaves. And this is first-hand experience talking here. My point: immaturity transcends generational lines.
John
Brother John,
Thanks for your rant. :) Seriously, you make good points. However, we are speaking about people leaving churches and using those items you have pointed to as excuses to forsake the assembling of themselves together. If I were to open this comment stream to everyone who ever got hurt by someone in church we would be over 5000 comments by suppertime tonight. No one has said that these people do not exist in churches. What I am advocating is those who leave, never to return until a church does things like they want, are not de-churching themselves they are rebelling against God. If they are Christians then they will find another church and find it in a relative short period of time. If they are not Christians they will wait until some church springs up somewhere that will do church the way they want church done. Then the question does not relate so much to the church being faithful to the word of God as much as it relates to the church finding a niche to get lost people to believe they are serving God by attending their church.
Blessings,
Tim
“…. Immaturity transcends generational lines.”
John,
I agree with you. My relationship to God and my commitment to the fulfillment of His claims upon my life are not dependent upon my “generational origin.”
I must follow Christ, for there is no one else who has the Words of eternal life. My age, or socio-economic background or heritage is not an issue. If my following Christ makes me an outcast even in my own home, I must follow Him.
If I do otherwise, I become a rebel, to the very grace He has bestowed upon me.
You referenced Daniel 3:18 and Job 13:15 and you are very right to do so. I would like to add Joshua 24:15 to the mix also.
cb
Call it rebellion, call it “de-churched”, call it backsliding, call it “falling away”, or anything else. The point that Chandler makes in the video is that many times people rebel (dechurch, backslide, fall away, whatever) because they’ve been fed a diet of law that can’t stand the test of time. When trials by fire come, they think, “But I did everything I was told to do to keep this from hapening.” I don’t know that Matt would use the term “rebellion” instead of “dechurched” but neither do I know that he wouldn’t. What to call the phenomenon of people leaving the church when the theology they’ve been taught doesn’t hold up doesn’t seem to be his point at all.
John Farriss is on to something, I think. We decry the prosperity gospel, but then turn a sermon on David into “slaying your personal giants”, or we turn a sermon on the Prodigal Son into “the perils of licentious living”, or Ephesians 5, “Four steps to a happier marriage”, etc. Regardless of how we package it, law is not gospel, and anywhere the one is exchanged for the other, people will eventually dechurch, rebel, backslide, fall away, whatever.
Hopefully, it’s a tension that every teacher/preacher lives with on a ragular basis. And hopefully, we’re talking here about the exception among churches and not the rule.
I have heard many lost people give all kinds of excuses for not going to Church. And, I know of some people who look for excuses to not go to Church…it makes them feel less guilty about not going if they feel that they have a good reason.
I visit absentee Church members all the time. I start at A and work thru the membership until I get to Z. I have done this at every Church that I’ve been a Pastor of. I find people out there who are as lost as goose in high weeds, and who care no more for the things of God than a hog cares about good table manners. I’d say that when Billy Graham and others make statements about 85% of Church members being lost…they are right…and the rolls of most Churches are full of them…sadly….including mine. But, I do try to do something about it. I encourage them to come back to Church. I later go back to them…if they are still not coming…and talk to them about them having a bad, spiritual problem in their lives. And, it aint because we dont start off the worship services with “Highway to Hell,” or because I dont dress in a tutu and do creative dance duruing the worship that they arent coming. I would dare say that they certainly have no desire for true worship and Bible study. They are lost, and lost people do not care for the things of God.
I’m with Tim on this…if someone can leave Church and never come back, nor find another Church to attend faithfully; then they are probably lost…in the least, they’re backslidden.
David
Brother Stuart,
You are correct and we could debate the exact term for eons. However, my point of this post is to call attention to church starts that have a certain focus. It seems that most church plants operate under the assumption that many outside of the church are outside the church because the church has hurt them in the past and they just checked out. The intent of the article is to point out that church starts that focus on bringing back church members that have walked away are, whether we agree on a term or not, encouraging a continued walk in sin. These disgruntled former church members come into a church setting that caters to their desires. I believe that it will only be a short time before these new church starts become traditionalized (I do not think that is a word) according to these same disgruntled church members that “de-church” themselves again.
Blessings,
Tim
Once again, against my better judgment, allow me to try one more time. You are taking the argument and applying it personally. I am not speaking about someone that gets hurt in a church and leaves to find another church. I am speaking about people who say they left the church all together because someone in a church in the past hurt them and they are not going to return to any church because of it.
Tim: And I will try one more time. So am I. It isn’t personal, this is from speaking to those who have left the church. My reading comprehension is fine.
Stewart is basically saying the same thing that I am.
I know of a couple of folks that rebelled, asserted their autonomy, and left what they considered less than idyllic. It’s not hard for any of us to follow that pattern.
Joe,
Isn’t that a Baptistic pattern during the last 40 years? Not a good pattern, but a familiar one none the less. I would be curious to know the percentage of 42,000 churches that were the result of such autonomous rebellion. That might explain the restoration void and lack of making disciples that exist in much of the convention.
-Chris
Is it possible that Matt Chandler is right about many preachers preaching everything in the world other than the gospel and that Tim Rogers is right about people who leave a local body and remain “de-churched” for whatever reason are either in rebellion against the mandates of Christ or they are exhibiting their lostness in yet another manifestation?
I well remember back in the eighties there were guys preaching sermons about such things as how to do “car maintenance” and “living on a budget for singles.”
I also find myself asking from time-to-time; What is a “topical-expository” sermon anyway?
Also, it seems that the problem of people de-churching themselves has been a problem since the first century and is nothing new. Otherwise, why did the Holy Spirit inspire the writer of Hebrews to address the problem in Hebrews 10:19-25. To neglect the “assembly” was rebellion then and it is rebellion now.
The issues of attention seem to be, in my not very humble opinion, that those who claim to be called as shepherds must preach the gospel, for it is to that purpose we have been called.
For those of us who have been given redemption by the atonement of Christ it is our mandate to assembly ourselves with those who claim the Name of Jesus regularly. if we fail to carry out that part of the mandate of Christ upon our lives, then we are in rebellion, not to a gospel neglecting preacher and dead church, but to Him who has charged boldly the bloody cross and rose in the glorious resurrection and charged us to take up our cross and follow Him in all things He commands.
cb
“To neglect the “assembly” was rebellion then and it is rebellion now.”
yes sir it is!
Blessings,
Chris
Does it not come down to the simple fact that we are to find where God wants us ( a local church) and serve and minister and grow? If so, then to leave a church and not find another is rebellion. To leave due to a situation (theological, ethical, or otherwise) and then go and find another and join and be the church – that is biblical and right!
Why is there a issue? Seems clear.
When Chandler talks of Moral Deism, he is referring to the research done by Christian Smith and his team in the book, Soul Searching. At the end of the book, Smith concludes that the content most youth get in youth group is equivalent to therapeutic moral deism. In other words, a God exists who possesses moral laws. So long as I live in accordance to those laws, I am destined to feel good about myself, my life and others.
Some of you have questioned where those churches are. Chandler (echoing Smith) is not accusing pastors of this per se (though I have sat through those messages!) He is saying that the younger generation – my generation – sat through youth group session after youth group session where the Gospel was not clearly taught. Christianity was about what you did and didn’t do, not about a life transformed by Jesus Christ. Once I trusted Christ, I needed to keep my hair cut short, avoid dating non-Christians, no sex, drugs or rock and roll and life would be good. That is a lie and not the Gospel.
Tim,
You’ll have to forgive me because somewhere along the way I failed to realize that you were talking specifically about church plants that target those who’ve fallen away. I suppose I consider that more of a boomer phenomonenon that started with Willowcreek and culminated with Saddleback, so I hadn’t made a connection to Chandler or the message of the video.
Yes, I see your point that if someone falls away, for whatever reason, they don’t need to be pandered to just to get them “back in church”. And while it doesn’t come through in this particular video, I think Chandler would agree. But, I do remember well receiving cards in the mail for new church plants appealing to the lowest common denominator. If that’s the phenomenon that you’re describing then I wholeheartedly agree with you. (Even though I would suggest there’s another video or example out there somewhere that would make the point better! ;-) )
Thanks for yoru patience with me in this thread.
John M. Yeats,
The “brand” of youth ministry you have described seems to be a disease in SBC life that spread like swine flu in a football locker room around 1969 and beyond. It has brought about a toxic harvest in local Southern Baptist churches.
Believe it or not, Dr. Paige Patterson spoke vehemently against that kind of weak youth ministry back in the eighties and nineties and was scorned for it. He was right all along.
BTW, you would admonish youth age Christians to live holy lives no matter if life was good or if it was full of sorrow would you not? I just wanted to clarify that so no one will think you advocate an Antinomian life-style.
cb
Holiness is demanded by God of those who follow Him. We cannot forget this. But true holiness is part of the life of someone transformed by the Gospel. Moral action apart from the Gospel is empty rule-following and does not save. My living a “holy” or moral life apart from Christ IS empty and exactly what Dr. Patterson and others were warning about.
Unfortunately, this type of teaching did infect our churches and has been a part of almost every SBC church I have served. (That, along with a version of pragmatic open theism – but that is for another day). We must return to teaching that it is in Christ that transformation and holiness begin – not in my own effort. AND, above all, my living for Christ may require suffering, heartache and pain. God owes me nothing. My call is to take up the cross and follow Him.
“….true holiness is part of the life of someone transformed by the Gospel. Moral action apart from the Gospel is empty rule-following and does not save.”
A-Men.
Thank you John M. Yeats.
It is true that anyone can be morally good. Only a Blood-bought follower of Christ can be holy.
Dr. Yeats,
Thank you for your contribution. You write the conclusion to Smith’s book was; “So long as I live in accordance to those laws, I am destined to feel good about myself, my life and others. You then express that salvation is not what was being taught. Help me understand where you are heading with this. I agree that if this was taught then the true gospel was not presented. My question would be how were youth saved if the gospel was don’t date people that aren’t Christians, don’t listen to rock and roll and don’t let your hair grow over your ears?
If the gospel was not clearly presented when did these youth get saved?
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Thanks for the loaded question! :-)
Are we willing to state that if someone preaches or presents something other than the true Gospel, those responding were responding to something else – emotion, peer pressure or even good intentions? Are we also willing to state that the Holy Spirit can change lives even when we blow it because He is the one who works in the hearts of the Lost?
As I argued in Franchising McChurch, I think we have plenty of churches that have many unsaved people in them that are confused about the true nature of the Gospel. Because they walked an aisle, are they saved? What do they “do” to be saved? This frames part of the problem and the confusion. It is about us doing, not what Jesus did for many people in our churches.
While I can serve as a “fruit inspector”, I am not the ultimate judge of a person’s salvation. That is the role of my God and King. In the mean time, I am responsible to preach and teach the Gospel as clearly as possible and pray that God awakens souls through the power of the Holy Spirit. I may not be happy with what others do, but I am ultimately responsible for the congregation where God has placed me.
Dr. Yeats,
I only asked you one (1) loaded question and you respond to me with multiple loaded questions. So that is why you got a PhD. :)
I may not be happy with what others do, but I am ultimately responsible for the congregation where God has placed me. Amen and Amen!
Help me with my point (and even Brother Joe Stewart in his article above mine somewhat says the same) that the starting of new churches that cater to these very people that checked out is rather suspect. I believe there are many church plants that seem to cater to the “come to us we will give you what you feel church is supposed to be” mentality. This very mentality attracts church swappers instead of Christ followers.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
I have more loaded questions if you want them! :-)
Your query about reaching the disenfranchised by starting new churches that minister to them actually has a couple of different levels.
On one level, we may argue that these individuals were never believers. In doing outreach with my church, we have discovered several people like this. When talking to them about Christ, their answer is similar to “oh, I attend such and such church” or “I worship over there.” When you ask them the last time they attended, they balk. When you ask them about Jesus, they have a works based salvation mentality they picked up from somewhere. We tell them the Gospel. So… If I am starting a church that reaches these types of people – and I run into these everywhere in Texas! – we are doing the hard work of the Gospel and Evangelism.
On another level, if we are saying these are believers who have checked out of church and our approach is, as you said, “come to us we will give you what you feel church is supposed to be,” this is a simply extrapolation from the homogeneous unit principle most church planting and church marketing materials talk about. Target your audience (Saddleback Sam or Willow Creek Harry), know what appeals to them, and go after them.
On some levels, this isn’t as pernicious as it sounds. My job as a pastor is to lead my congregation to reach our community for Christ. I need to understand who is in my community so I can effectively “speak their language” when I share the Gospel with them. So broadly used, if the homogeneous unit principle means “reflective of my community,” we so have no problems Scripturally or otherwise.
If, however, I take the homogeneous unit principle and become overly focused – We feel called to reach the thirtysomething, upwardly mobile, white, two-income families in our community – which is something a planter once told me, then we have gone too far. We are restricting the Gospel! And, those disenfranchised some are seeking are people. Flawed people. Just like the flawed sinners (like me) who are in the church I serve. Inevitably, they can also become hurt, uncomfortable, challenged beyond where they are willing to go, etc. and become the doubly-disenfranchised. Not good.
We have to remember that the Gospel is not restricted by demographics. Our congregations should reflect the lost in our community, not the portion we are most comfortable with or the people we can best market toward. What is the reality? We all have gifts and strengths as leaders that God uses to further His kingdom. My preaching style may not appeal to some. The music we have may not appeal to some. As a leader in a congregation, our church has to be faithful to the Word of God and reach the LOST in our community and quit trying to steal sheep. Will transfer growth happen? Yup. We have trained good church shoppers over the years. What can we do to fight that more than anything else? Do evangelism.
I just discovered that there are 112,000 people in a 5 mile radius from the church where I am interim pastor. That is our field “white unto harvest.” I share that field with 8 other SBC churches and numerous other Bible believing, Evangelical churches. I would be willing to bet that on any given Sunday, our combined attendance wouldn’t equal 25% of that 112k. I have work to do. My church has work to do.
Will we find the disenfranchised from other churches in that field? Yes. I want to find out if they are saved and work from there. Perhaps we can see restitution with their former church. Perhaps not. Perhaps these disenfranchised find a home in the congregation I serve – fine. Should we plant a church in this field? I hope so. We need more workers. Should that new church target only the disenfranchised? I hope not. I hope they target the lost.
Dr. Yeats,
Thank you for the interaction. I agree with you on your assessment. You have clearly articulated my concern. You are correct in that we are not going to stand and give account for what another church does, we will only give account for what we lead the church we serve to do. I pray that we all begin with the gospel to reach the disenfranchised. However, the marketing material that one sees certainly appears to appeal to another facet of humankind.
Thanks for the dialogue and I pray God’s blessings on you as you serve our Lord in the Metroplex. Pray for us as we strive to present the Gospel to the nations coming to our doors here in the Charlotte metro area.
Blessings,
Tim
Tim,
Good talking to you as well!
May all of the Charlotte metro area hear the Gospel!
J.M.
Tim,
If I am hearing you correctly [and I'm open to the idea that I might not be], then I think what you are saying [or leaning towards saying] is that folks should either:
A. stay in their local church
B. or find a local church
But what folks should not do is start a local church because the church would be started by disgruntled folks.
I think that is painting with too broad a brush. Sure, there could be a new church started with is unhealthy right from the start because it is started by unjustified malcontents.
However, I don’t believe that necessarily is going to be the case every time. For example, one of the healthiest churches [in my opinion] where I live was started by a number of families in different churches who were not satisfied with the churches they belonged to and so started a church on their own [if I get the story right].
This church now is growing numerically and has a Bible preaching pastor. So, I think we need to leave room for the possibility of a church being started that ends up being a healthy church.
The problem with the “homogeneous unit” principle is that there don’t seem to be that many untapped “homogeneous units” left.
The classic ones “Saddleback” and “Willow Creek” shared these attributes: (a) very high income demographic, (b) mostly young urban professionals upwardly mobile, (c) high growth areas, (d) fairly high population density.
Generally as areas age, they have become more diverse in terms of the age of the families living there as well as much more diverse ethnicly. My home town area of SE Los Angeles County and Orange County [California] is a prime example. In the 1950s, that place was growing like wildfire. Most of the new residents were middle income and there was not much racial diversity. Now, 50 years later, that same area has aged considerably. Some of the schools have closed due to declining enrollment. There are huge Latino and Asian populations.
This same situation is happening all over the Bible Belt also: Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Nashville, Memphis, Burmingham. Other than a few suburban pockets: Plano / Preston Road [Dallas], Vestavia Hills [Birmingham], Buckwood [Atlanta], etc. most of the action is going to be with demographic groups that are radically different than what we typically think of when we consider the SBC of yore.
Population is increasing in urban/suburban centers all over the Southland. At the same time, in many states a quarter to a third of the counties [those that are rural] are decreasing in population. In some rural counties in TX, OK, AK, a huge percentage of people who remain are agricultural migrants — most who don’t speak English — and some who are in the USA illegally.
I think the “homogeneous principle” has run out of gas — especially if we define “homogeneous” to mean: like us.
I’m trying to think of a place in the USA where Saddleback would still work. Maybe the far north environs of Altanta would work (sorry that is already taken by Woodstock). Maybe south of Ocala FL? Maybe some outer fringe of Phoenix or KC?
So, Roger, What you are saying is that we should reach the field where God has planted us? How dare you insinuate such radical Biblicism! :-)
Here’s the deal: Perhaps I am an idealist (I have been accused of this and worse), but God intended us to reach those around us. Your growth market is the place where you are. If your church’s neighborhood has changed, it’s ok, but that neighborhood still needs Jesus. White flight should no longer define our churches. Let’s look to the mission field where God has placed us. Ministries change, methods change, but the reality of the Gospel NEVER changes. We need to get flexible and get to work.
We still have neighbors in the apartments across the street and around the corner that don’t know Jesus. The same for the neighborhoods close by. That means, my job isn’t done.
John M. Yeats,
I would not know you if you fell out of a Sweet Gum tree in front of me on a dirt road, but I need to warn you. You have revealed a well kept secret of growth for many mega-churches in the Southland and other places in this country although no one will admit it very publicly.
You said:
“White flight should no longer define our churches.”
My brother, “Whiter Flight” have been the rapid growth catalyst for many churches throughout the Southland. In many cases it has been the “primary growth strategy” for many white suburban Baptist churches. In some cases it was quite by accident that “white flight” occurred in the front yard of churches some guys were serving as pastor. Those churches grew due to white flight and the pastor had the idea it was due to him being so great.
Maybe I will meet you one day. I will buy you a cup of coffee.
BTW, be careful talking about white flight and church growth. You let the secret out and some guys will not think well of you.
cb
Dr. Yeats and CB:
The cat is out of the bag! There has been a ‘significant’ correlation between SBC church growth and upwardly mobile, higher end, surburban demographics in the last 40 years.
Examples that come to mind:
Memphis -> Cordoba TN, Bellevue Baptist
North Dallas TX, Prestonwood
North OKC OK, Quail Springs
SE Birmingham AL, Brook Hills
High income enclave Orange County CA, Saddleback
Counter examples:
New Orleans, Franklin Avenue Baptist
FBC Spartanburg SC
FBC Jacksonville FL
Vibrant churches here in greater OKC that don’t necessarily fit into
some particular demographic model:
FBC Moore OK
Southern Hills BC, SW OKC
Council Road BC, Bethany OK
There are several vibrant SBC churches in the Houton TX area where it is more difficult to make a case that growth is due to “high end” demographics. One would be Sagemont.
I don’t think demographics is the only determinant for church growth but it certainly has played a major role — most large and/or growing churches seem to be in an area with a growing or at least stable population.
Roger,
Here’s the difference for many of the churches you named. Some of them saw a growth sector in the city and either relocated or were planted into that sector of the city. Growth in any city = need.
What some planters are doing is looking at growth, but then determining what socio-economic level that growth is at and targeting the one they feel more comfortable reaching.
Two problems arise:
1.) for the churches that left for growing suburban areas, they often did not leave anything effective where they were leaving a gap in ministry. Of course, truth be told, many of them had stopped reaching that community long before and were reaching the very people they were relocating toward.
2.) Demographics are important. Planting churches is essential. Socio-economic realities should not determine whether a community gets a church or not. Unfortunately, this is a hard line to divide between.
Roger and John M. Yeats,
I would like to say something for some of the churches Roger has mentioned.
Yes, much of the growth in those churches was due to “white flight.” There is no question about that. Yet, at the same time, many of those churches have become great missions focused churches.
These are examples of such from the group Roger mentioned:
“Memphis -> Cordoba TN, Bellevue Baptist
North Dallas TX, Prestonwood
SE Birmingham AL, Brook Hills
There are many others.
My basic point is that, guys do not need to be so concerned with where they have been placed of the Lord to work. We need to be concerned with being faithful to the call of the Great Commission upon our lives. We must be faithful to proclaim the biblical gospel wherever we are and let God determine the increase.
cb
cb,
sounds like you’ve been reading what Luke was pointing out to us Christians at Acts 4 & 5 again. You rascal!
-Chris
Chris,
I have read it and was/am sorely and grievously convicted by it.
Upon such conviction it is revealed that my only option is to repent and seek to finish well the mandates of the Great Commission during the remainder of my pilgrimage here.
You are a good man Chris Johnson and highly honest. I also thank you for your efforts relating to the stopping of the National Healthcare Bill. That bill, if it passes will be a burden upon this country and its citizenry that we cannot bear.
John M. Yeats,
I was just informed as to who you are. I now realize why you could not engage me directly or by name. None the less, you have spoken well here and I, for one, am glad you stand at the post of which God has assigned you. Your comprehension of our calling is greatly needed for the training of the brethren to carry out the Great Commission.
cb
cb,
Unfortunately, we already have a National Healthcare Bill (many of them), ….they are known by many other names. The goal is to work to correct the existing laws / bills and to apply the philosophy of the founding fathers of this Nation as clearly depicted in the US Constitution. We have woefully stubborn elite in the congress and in our government that are articulate and unashamedly in opposition to the founding principles of this young nation.
The welfare of our nation has been high-jacked to mean…. “If a man doesn’t work, we should raise taxes so that he can eat” (which translates to the elite as…we can keep the poor and ignorant appeased)….. which is a far cry from the principle and truth demanded by God that…. If a man doesn’t work, he shouldn’t expect to eat. We are quickly becoming a nation that no longer sacrifices to protect freedom, because many now strive to protect the circular philosophies of man for selfish gain. It’s the oldest trick in the book.
I don’t have a great deal of influence…. But I do write and call my representatives in Washington quite often…. because there are better and more principled solutions based upon a worldview built on the truth found in the Holy Scriptures.
Blessings,
Chris