Mainline Protestantism is in freefall, and Confessional bodies are declining. Only the nondenominational and the unaffiliated are growing, and that may not be the good news it looks like.
What are we to make of this? Take "Lutheran" off our church signs and rebrand as non denom? Why are the PCA & AoG doing so well? Mark Clifton at the North American Mission Board of the SBC has stated that the SBC would be in a freefall if it weren't for all the churches they plant every year.
The most important question about plants is not how many are planted, but how many are still around five years later. Church bodies are very reluctant to give out that information because the stats are terrible.
I think the SBC plants about 1,000 a year and no doubt many will fail but this is the seed going out. I have no idea how many new congregations we plant a year in the LCMS. Any idea?
Historically the trend in Orthodoxy are that immigrants/their children with a nominal affiliation who come to the United States may leave/drop out/join a more "American" denomination.
Meanwhile American converts who go through the full process of becoming a catechumen, baptism, and christmation tend to stick around simply because the process is rigorous and requires more than a superficial/emotional commitment. For instance, my catachumenate lasted 3 years.
As far as jurisdictions, I suspect that the current trends in Antioch, Rocor, and the OCA are quite different than GOARCH. Those three jurisdictions are the ones attracting the most American converts and Covid really changed what was going on. During Covid, the Orthodox church in my town was the only one that remained open. It has since doubled in size.
According to a Lutheran Pastor who WAS an Eastern Orthodox Priest for 5 years, the EO has mighty strange and unbiblical teachings. Crazy stuff.... Might be why people leave it after a while.
Even essentially conservative institutions have failed to pick up on, or have even resisted, what could be oversimplified as national politics in the US and the west. Ten years ago there were so many disappointing voices in the Missouri Synod condemning Mr. Trump for advocating only enforcing the law and upholding Christendom. Some holdouts will bring up this or that profane utterance as proof that they had to condemn him, but I continue to mock and ignore such dainty little guys peeing their pants. Trump didn't invent or create the sentiments he tapped into, but he's the easy totem to use for this. Church ignores realities of life day to day among the working (and out of work) folks, tending gnostic. Church where over 90 percent of the pastors are politically very conservative and vote R (sometimes holding the nose) muzzles the pastors and rejects a lifeline when Trump tries to cancel the "Johnson Amendment," fearing the walkout or, maybe worse, the angry phone calls from the congregants who vote for abortion, gender surgery on teens, lawless treatment of our borders, and other outrages. Indigenous (American) and less doctrinally anchored bodies picked up on the outcry of young men much sooner. At the core, the Missouri Synod is conservative, but accreted decades of mushy feminism dull and delay the ability of the synod to address what is happening to people. A lot of mushy weight has to be shed for the synod to get back to its virtuous core. The pattern for the "mainlines" is the same; they just are much further along the death march. It won't be a march to death, though. Just a smaller, purified church. Say this at beer or coffee or voters' or council and check the response: It is not always the will of God for attendance to grow in buildings styling themselves as "church" in a particular locale.
I am new to Lutheran church, it seems there is a lot of resistance to applying biblical viewpoints to parties or candidates. I spent most of my adult life in the Evangelical camp.
Fuzzy doctrines- they're only sure of two things: Baptism does nothing, and the Lord's Supper is mostly an afterthought and definitely not Christ's Body and Blood
Wasn't it Luther who said that the Anabaptists were the ones to keep an eye on. :D He also figured the Gospel would be under attack a decade after his death. The devil don't like Jesus and especially the Holy Spirit...because He creates faith. We can't do it. Look what the Spirit did at Pentecost...tons of believers. Once the Spirit has left a church, it's over. Christian converts to Islam say that they were drawn to the fact that their belief system and worship style hasn't changed, period. As a female Gen X-er who was ticked-off after the Synod changed The Red Book without asking congregations' permission, THEN switched it back after The Blue Book was total sell-out (atonal liturgical music, let alone changing all the lyrics that were 'uncomfortable'), then allowed what I call the Abomination That Causes Desolation (Contemporary service)...here we are. XD On a serious note, I used to type up the services on the media screens for Traditional. One day, I had to type up the Contemporary service. We could not call "The Lord's Prayer" the Lord's Prayer. It had to be "We Pray The Prayer That Our Lord Taught Us." There's the problem.
I hear you and agree, it's bad. The reason why people like to turn to it is because it tells them what to DO. A lot of Protestants think it's too easy, be baptized and believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ. So they need someone to tell them what boxes to tick and then they feel "I'm there!" :(
I attended a contemporary worship service at a big box non-denominational congregation. I could feel the spirit.
Several months later, the emotional high wore off. I was told that I just didn’t have enough faith because I could no longer “feel” the spirit during worship.
Where is the Spirit? Why couldn’t I sense Him nor “feel” him anymore. I thought the Holy Spirit created faith? I am failing God somehow.
Why would an LCMS congregation want to adopt non-denominational worship?
What's bad about the non-denominational is that they use music that "gins-you-up" and it appears that the Spirit is there. That's why Luther had a massive un-liking for Anabaptists: The Holy Spirit, if you've been baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is with you all the time. You will now know it. That's why you have to go by the WORD. Some people have the gift (as mentioned in the Book of Acts) of feeling the Spirit, but it's not gift everyone has. You are not failing God, you just have to believe the promises of Jesus Christ. Talk with an LCMS pastor and pray. *My one caveat about seeking pastoral help. We were shunned by congregation after we went to our pastor to seek help for my sister who has been "depressed" her entire life. TLDR, it's not depression it's oppression. So find the RIGHT pastor who won't shine you on when the going gets tough. I hope this helps. :D Jesus Christ is Lord.
All true that neither contemporary worship, nor small groups are growing the church the way that was sold for all those years, but to clarify the facts, the origins of those innovations were promoted and led by LCMS pre-boomer pastors and other personnel, to “attract“ young boomers. They listened to the whims of louder boomers who envied the “fun“ they perceived they were missing at their local Calvary or other non-denom big box churches, instead of paying attention to the silent majority of boomers and others who had no need for, and were not particularly interested in changing worship services. An example is one of the original PLI leaders who led with the philosophy of asking the rhetorical question “Would you be willing to give up your hymnals if that’s what it took to reach our young people?“ (He was talking about reaching boomers and younger). These are the ones that led the “missional” movement and recruited the type of boomers who were like-minded in that philosophy, and it grew from there, or I should say, metastasized from there.
We can agree that the older church leaders (currently 60 years old and up) are currently in charge of most congregations. They, and not the “young” 18-34 year olds, are the biggest champions of the non-denominational model. If the “missional” efforts were successful, then the pews would be full of young people. Why aren’t church leaders called to account for promoting failed policies?
Question for the PLI and ULC leaders: It is obvious per the numbers that the Church Growth model has failed. “Would you be willing to return to hymnals and make the Church super-masculine if that’s what it took to reach our young people?” Well?
As a "boomer," I strongly protested all that contemporary nonsense, and still do. There are some vapid hymns that when sung, I have to go to the narthex because I can't stomach them.
I prefer mostly pre-1640 hymns, Lutheran of course, with many verses, and which actually TEACH us faith.
"Membership" means something different in non-denom big box churches. Their numbers are based on attendance often including internet audience. I wouldn't make too much about their perceived "growth."
Yep, the data is not precise. Actual worship attendance would be better, but it is even more scarce. The best data would be membership of givers who spend more than 2.5% of their AGI or who log hours in service.
True. And perhaps, like David's census, God isn't terribly interested in the numbers game. A great apostasy is to be expected in the latter days. Perhaps this is what we are experiencing. The question is not will the Son of Man find a big thriving church when He returns but will He find faith upon the earth?
Remember the Gary Larson cartoon with the three large dinosaurs laughing at the fuzzy little mammal all the while its starting to snow?
This probably won't be a popular viewpoint, but here goes.
The large churches flourished in the religious cretaceous period going way back to Martin Luther and maybe even the years just after Constantine's conversion. A majority of people in society at large professed some faith in Christ, attended church regularly and acknowledged Christian principles of honestly, hard work, family values. The old Boy Scout motto of "God, Church and Family." I'm admittedly asking a hard question: Did the church flourish because it was internally warm, or did it merely reflect the generally warm and humid environment that was conducive to it's growth? Cold blooded vs Warm blooded?
The large, hierarchically structured churches are by nature (more often that we want to admit) political animals. Synods, Sessions, Conventions and the like function under protocols designed to promote the general views of a majority of the membership. Could it be that the churches we're seeing in decline have ALWAYS been cold blooded, adapting to and reflecting their environment rather than shaping it? It's hard to think about, but the observations our esteemed editor have made certainly seem to fit the hypothesis.
Now that the societal climate is changing, we can see the problem that was always there but masked by a generally pervasive issue that "doctrine" was a product of what the majority of the membership FELT rather than generated under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Exceptions always can be found, but generally I'm thinking this might be true.
Could it be that large, political structured churches are just not well adapted for survival in the cold winters that true Christ followers must now face? The furry funny little animal portrayed in Larsen's cartoon is simply better adapted for things like catacomb worship. I'm reminded of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver and Mr. Tumnus hanging on in C.S. Lewis' "always winter and never Christmas" machinations of the evil White Witch in the first Narnia tale.
Non-denom churches, in my view, are better able to withstand the theological undercurrents that are everywhere eroding the foundations of large structured churches. Someone noted in comments that Orthodox churches seem to be exceptions to the rule; they are also stridently opposed to cultural inputs. For the most part they have built and maintained an edifice that refuses to incorporate the latest cultural fad or novel theological interpretations.
People looking for Christ in an increasingly hostile cultural climate are, by definition, hungry for a foundation that can't be moved when the "strong tides lift and the cables strain." Those of us that are serious about following Christ want to be anchored in a rock that CANNOT move. Sadly, in this commenter's view, the Western organized churches are increasingly unable to offer safe harbor from the storms of post-christian culture.
When a church body calls themselves "Synod, Inc." I think you see the problem. :D The question I'd like to have answered is "If we're supposed to be in the world but not OF the world, why are they trying to be accepted by the world." They keep trying to move the Rock out of the building to be more "community-friendly." I never understood why the LCMS had to change for the 1%. Why didn't the leadership just tell the Folk Mass people to start their OWN church and let the majority worship in peace. :D
When we look at the decline of the Church in the west, we tend to play into the devil's hands, looking for someone, perhaps in administrative leadership, (pastors/synodical leaders/or even congregational leaders). That is, we want to find someone to blame. We look at things programmatically, and we are tempted to believe that, (and this is something that the Synod and church members have been doing since I was in the ministry), when we have found the person(s) to blame, we have solved the problem. We attack the church, its leaders, or even the sheep themselves. Missional, (in the broadest sense), perspectives seem to drive the Church, so that, instead of looking to the Lord, His Word, we look to technique(s), that will cause the Church to grow. That might work in the business world for a brief time, make the bottom line increase, but it is contrary to the way mission works in the Church. Analysis can be helpful, but the Church has to realize that she is called to be faithful, not necessarily to grow, (cf 1Kings 19:18 Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”) We cannot see the Church, and we have come to believe, and push, throughout my 30+ years in the ministry, that programs, will grow the Church. It is a temptation that will bear little fruit, even as it did for Fuller's Church Growth Movement. (Cf the book Stealing Sheep, written in 2001, Stealing Sheep: The Church's Hidden Problems of Transfer Growth Paperback – January 1, 2001, by William Chadwick (Author), and the note on the back by a prof from Fuller who said that their efforts of truly growing the Church over a 30 year period, produced ZERO growth, but just, as Dr Alvin Schmidt used to say, was just "sheep shifting.")
When we see Non-denoms growing, we look at it programmatically, and ask what are they doing, and seek to imitate them, use their methods, (sounding more like Finney than any Confessional Lutheran), indiscriminately. Non-denoms are, by definition, unchurchly organizations, not, as Paul exhorts the Ephesians, Ephesians 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace). "Endeavoring" better translated "being zealous to keep (treasure, guard), the unity of the Spirit, that is, to remain ONE confessionally. But the non-denoms do what they have always done, act as lone wolves, who will not engage the Church, trying to be inclusive and rejecting the notion of correcting false teaching, but setting up idiosyncratic "confessions" usually constructed by one man, the pastor, and that with the goal of proving to some who will listen, that they are inclusive. This kind of behavior is an appeal to the latest fads of human thinking, cf Christian Smith's new book, (Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America by Christian Smith (Author) 2025), in which he notes that the thing that people expect the Church to do is "get along." "Religion is good when it fosters community, social cooperation, peace, and harmony." [Smith, Christian. Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America (p. 50). (Function). Kindle Edition.]
This is one thing that people think Church is good for, and any who argue about religion, doctrine, etc, will fail to be, for those who are culturally bound, someplace they would want to go. Instead they will be attracted to those places who define themselves as being outside/above the messy work of being zealous to keep, treasure, guard, the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." They stand alone, and people join them, not because they care about the Church, (capital C), but because they do not want to be part of a church that understands this is a battle, not against flesh and blood, but against the devil. They are unchurchly organizations, built on human asperations and machinations. Hence they stand alone, or with a small group of people who do not fight against doctrine, but agree to disagree. Remember, the LCMS split in the 70s was not just about the bible, but about the doctrine of the Church and ecumenism/fellowship/cooperation. (Cf Kurt Marquart's Anatomy of an Explosion).
Secondly, the Church has been coopted by therapeutic ideology/methods, which is extremely legalistic, tending to cancel culture. The therapeutic culture that we live in becomes an authority that stands above Scripture, does not allow pastors/churches to speak the word clearly, but the pastor must become therapeutic in his preaching because, as Smith wrote last year, "A second good most Americans think religion can provide is emotional and psychological support." [Smith, Christian. Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America (p. 48). (Function). Kindle Edition.] When pastors do that, they are not able to speak to Christians, as Christians, who depend on the Word, the whole council of God, to create and sustain the Church. Even Tim Wood interview with Ahlman (Why the LCMS Is in Freefall — and What Must Change), ended with Tim Wood losing connection, and the hosts, running immediately to the old saw of meeting "felt needs" of people. In December, Ahlman spoke to a DCE about a book about leadership, written by a Fuller Psych prof, Rare Leadership, which was nothing but therapeutic posturing and in some ways, sadly lacking in biblical clarity. They are accommodating to this second good that the world defines as primary for the Church, emotional and psychological support. While this might work for a time, it does not create disciples, but clients in the therapeutic society.
The Church, using techniques learned from the world will gather hearers, but the therapeutic message that the world expects, (for to the world, the therapeutic is the new authority, that which defines good and evil, so to speak), and it will join for a time, but then, like any other human organization, will fail, even as the more liberal, culturally defined liberal churches in the stats prove, will decline. Crowds will come and go, read the bible, but there will be those who will stand, confess, and declare the Word, which will keep them to eternity. (Cf the temptation of Jesus, "man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God"). The churches that are declining look like businessmen looking for the latest hook to attract people, rather than faithfully standing on the Rock, who is Christ.
When I was a student at BIOLA (Baptist institution) in post graduate apologetics in the late 90s, we had a common observation. There are/were people in the church who are emotional and not intellectually grounded. We firmly believed they would become bombs 💣 , those ready to leave the church the moment it no longer felt good to be a Christian.
I became Lutheran LCMC seven years ago when searching for a choir to sing in. High church was scary to approach due the sexual corruption in mainline church practice & doctrine(Episcopalian). Now a member of LCMS.
I do wonder are we just seeing people drift away, who don’t want to pay a cultural price for being associated with Christianity?
They no longer ‘feel good,’ in this ‘negative world.’ To borrow Aaron Renns’ outline.
The notion that they could become bombs is related to what we see, culturally, in which people use their feelings to judge what is right/wrong, good/evil, and therefore, feelings/emotions become authoritative over the Word. Their emotions become their epistemological and hermeneutical touchstones, rather than the Word, which is the truth and its own interpreter.
Cultural price is rooted in the marketing of the Church, and when that becomes definitive, we will see what we saw by many marketers, eg Target, TV, etc.
As a lifelong LCMS Lutheran, who loved those 2 years of catechism (memorizing Luther's Small Catechism TWICE), I saw being Lutheran as being In the world, but not rooted in this world. Thus, I rejected movies and TV, and gambling, partying, etc., and focused on reading to learn more about my beliefs and those of other religions. I'm so glad I did so, as I was able to see heresies and mistakes for what they are. I think part of the LCMS problem is we do not demonstrate that we are "set apart." We need more focus on what FAITH truly is, and how to truly live it. And it starts at home.
Deep structural reform across all aspects of the LCMS is likely what is needed to keep the synod going. That being said, its probably very unlikely considering the prevailing culture. Ad Crucem does a noble job of covering all these issues and he even suggests novel, realistic solutions to the problems. The vast majority of the "right wing" are Buckleyite conservatives that couldnt even conserve the womens restroom. Its always punch right, racism, groupism, antisemitism, ageism, etc ad nauseum kvecthing forever. There is only losing to the leftist takeover when this is the culture. Lutherans need to develop Lutheran culture that is unapologetic, pious, biblical, confessional and in line with God's created order.
It would be interesting to know, why the PCA is growing while other confessional church bodies are dramatically shrinking. May be that the work with the children and the use and also the struggle with the ideological surroundings are important issues. Lutheranism as it is presenting itself in most times presents itself as a one-man-show, the general priesthood of all believers, also an important part of our doctrine, has very few impacts on congregational reality. That might be an important point too. Pastors should contact those who leave to know the reasons, since that would be really important.
I, too, am very interested to understand why the PCA is growing while everyone else seems to be shrinking. It is relatively conservative as a whole, and from what I've heard and read, young men who leave nondenominational churches who are drawn to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy are much more likely to become PCA than Lutheran. I know there are some leaders in PCA like the late Timothy Keller who were influential beyond their denomination. Does anyone have more information explaining this trend?
I'm not saying I hold to Calvinist theology. I'm a confessional Lutheran, and my father was an LCMS pastor. I'm simply asking, with Roland above, why the PCA is growing "while other confessional church bodies are dramatically shrinking." It's a question worth considering, as Lutheran churches fade away.
LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ)
Roughly 150,000–170,000 baptized members across approximately 900+ congregations. LCMC skews toward smaller, often rural or ex-urban congregations, so average parish size pulls the total down even with a relatively large congregation count.
NALC (North American Lutheran Church)
Roughly 100,000–130,000 baptized members across approximately 400 congregations. The NALC tends to have somewhat larger average congregations than LCMC, partly reflecting its roots in larger ELCA departures post-2009.
The net effect will be negligible. The line would effectively stay unchanged.
For far too long the church has chased the shiny, the innovative, and the haters of Christ instead of faithfully raising and retaining children in the historic Christian faith and its practice and traditions. Against a 38.6% loss of ELCA members over the past 20 years the Amish have grown 97% in that same period.
Changing the sign in the parking lot has little chance of overcoming decades worth of hubristic rebellion against Christ's command to "feed my lambs".
Dare I say that the outcomes we are witnessing are not only pragmatic consequences but are the judgement of God? Perhaps less innovation and more repentance is in order.
Your time is up, Peter. We do not need hatemongers and warmongers in the comments. Cheers.
What are we to make of this? Take "Lutheran" off our church signs and rebrand as non denom? Why are the PCA & AoG doing so well? Mark Clifton at the North American Mission Board of the SBC has stated that the SBC would be in a freefall if it weren't for all the churches they plant every year.
The most important question about plants is not how many are planted, but how many are still around five years later. Church bodies are very reluctant to give out that information because the stats are terrible.
I think the SBC plants about 1,000 a year and no doubt many will fail but this is the seed going out. I have no idea how many new congregations we plant a year in the LCMS. Any idea?
SBC plants
2022: 745.
2020: 588.
They are closing churches faster than they can plant and sustain. A lot are also defecting to non-denom.
The article completely misses the growth in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is growing very quickly.
We struggled to get a decent long-range data set. EO churches have seen growth, but the long-term data is only moderately better.
2020 estimates:
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America: 440,000 adherents (largest single jurisdiction)
Orthodox Church in America (OCA): 115,100 adherents
Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese: 83,700 adherents
Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA: 57,500 adherents
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA: 30,000 adherents
Oriental Orthodox churches are outgrowing the EO churches. The last estimate, if it can be believed, is 294,762 members in 2010 and 491,413 in 2020.
The EO influx is also balanced by the exodus; a lot of folks leave the EO after a few years.
I wonder what reasons former EO churchgoers give for leaving their church bodies.
Historically the trend in Orthodoxy are that immigrants/their children with a nominal affiliation who come to the United States may leave/drop out/join a more "American" denomination.
Meanwhile American converts who go through the full process of becoming a catechumen, baptism, and christmation tend to stick around simply because the process is rigorous and requires more than a superficial/emotional commitment. For instance, my catachumenate lasted 3 years.
As far as jurisdictions, I suspect that the current trends in Antioch, Rocor, and the OCA are quite different than GOARCH. Those three jurisdictions are the ones attracting the most American converts and Covid really changed what was going on. During Covid, the Orthodox church in my town was the only one that remained open. It has since doubled in size.
According to a Lutheran Pastor who WAS an Eastern Orthodox Priest for 5 years, the EO has mighty strange and unbiblical teachings. Crazy stuff.... Might be why people leave it after a while.
Even essentially conservative institutions have failed to pick up on, or have even resisted, what could be oversimplified as national politics in the US and the west. Ten years ago there were so many disappointing voices in the Missouri Synod condemning Mr. Trump for advocating only enforcing the law and upholding Christendom. Some holdouts will bring up this or that profane utterance as proof that they had to condemn him, but I continue to mock and ignore such dainty little guys peeing their pants. Trump didn't invent or create the sentiments he tapped into, but he's the easy totem to use for this. Church ignores realities of life day to day among the working (and out of work) folks, tending gnostic. Church where over 90 percent of the pastors are politically very conservative and vote R (sometimes holding the nose) muzzles the pastors and rejects a lifeline when Trump tries to cancel the "Johnson Amendment," fearing the walkout or, maybe worse, the angry phone calls from the congregants who vote for abortion, gender surgery on teens, lawless treatment of our borders, and other outrages. Indigenous (American) and less doctrinally anchored bodies picked up on the outcry of young men much sooner. At the core, the Missouri Synod is conservative, but accreted decades of mushy feminism dull and delay the ability of the synod to address what is happening to people. A lot of mushy weight has to be shed for the synod to get back to its virtuous core. The pattern for the "mainlines" is the same; they just are much further along the death march. It won't be a march to death, though. Just a smaller, purified church. Say this at beer or coffee or voters' or council and check the response: It is not always the will of God for attendance to grow in buildings styling themselves as "church" in a particular locale.
I am new to Lutheran church, it seems there is a lot of resistance to applying biblical viewpoints to parties or candidates. I spent most of my adult life in the Evangelical camp.
Was hoping you could expand on what you were saying.
Fuzzy doctrines- they're only sure of two things: Baptism does nothing, and the Lord's Supper is mostly an afterthought and definitely not Christ's Body and Blood
Wasn't it Luther who said that the Anabaptists were the ones to keep an eye on. :D He also figured the Gospel would be under attack a decade after his death. The devil don't like Jesus and especially the Holy Spirit...because He creates faith. We can't do it. Look what the Spirit did at Pentecost...tons of believers. Once the Spirit has left a church, it's over. Christian converts to Islam say that they were drawn to the fact that their belief system and worship style hasn't changed, period. As a female Gen X-er who was ticked-off after the Synod changed The Red Book without asking congregations' permission, THEN switched it back after The Blue Book was total sell-out (atonal liturgical music, let alone changing all the lyrics that were 'uncomfortable'), then allowed what I call the Abomination That Causes Desolation (Contemporary service)...here we are. XD On a serious note, I used to type up the services on the media screens for Traditional. One day, I had to type up the Contemporary service. We could not call "The Lord's Prayer" the Lord's Prayer. It had to be "We Pray The Prayer That Our Lord Taught Us." There's the problem.
I hear you and agree, it's bad. The reason why people like to turn to it is because it tells them what to DO. A lot of Protestants think it's too easy, be baptized and believe in the saving power of Jesus Christ. So they need someone to tell them what boxes to tick and then they feel "I'm there!" :(
Peter: "There are also hundreds of thousands of Muslims becoming Christian."
In the U.S. or the world? Over what time period? Please document where such data comes from?
Do you think this constant Muslim bashing is productive if Muslims are reading?
What about the Mishneh Torah, Mishnah, Gemara, and Midrash?
No thanks. We have nothing to learn from the sages. We have Christ and His Word.
The Holy Spirit creates faith.
I attended a contemporary worship service at a big box non-denominational congregation. I could feel the spirit.
Several months later, the emotional high wore off. I was told that I just didn’t have enough faith because I could no longer “feel” the spirit during worship.
Where is the Spirit? Why couldn’t I sense Him nor “feel” him anymore. I thought the Holy Spirit created faith? I am failing God somehow.
Why would an LCMS congregation want to adopt non-denominational worship?
What's bad about the non-denominational is that they use music that "gins-you-up" and it appears that the Spirit is there. That's why Luther had a massive un-liking for Anabaptists: The Holy Spirit, if you've been baptized into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is with you all the time. You will now know it. That's why you have to go by the WORD. Some people have the gift (as mentioned in the Book of Acts) of feeling the Spirit, but it's not gift everyone has. You are not failing God, you just have to believe the promises of Jesus Christ. Talk with an LCMS pastor and pray. *My one caveat about seeking pastoral help. We were shunned by congregation after we went to our pastor to seek help for my sister who has been "depressed" her entire life. TLDR, it's not depression it's oppression. So find the RIGHT pastor who won't shine you on when the going gets tough. I hope this helps. :D Jesus Christ is Lord.
There have been two tools most denominations have used to attract and retain “young people:”
Small groups and contemporary worship are Boomer-led innovations designed “to attract young people.”
Based on current church membership statistics, where are the young people that the denominational Boomer church leaders have promised?
Why are the young people choosing to skip your church for the non-denominational church across town?
Why is the PCA growing? What are they doing that makes them stand out from other church bodies?
All true that neither contemporary worship, nor small groups are growing the church the way that was sold for all those years, but to clarify the facts, the origins of those innovations were promoted and led by LCMS pre-boomer pastors and other personnel, to “attract“ young boomers. They listened to the whims of louder boomers who envied the “fun“ they perceived they were missing at their local Calvary or other non-denom big box churches, instead of paying attention to the silent majority of boomers and others who had no need for, and were not particularly interested in changing worship services. An example is one of the original PLI leaders who led with the philosophy of asking the rhetorical question “Would you be willing to give up your hymnals if that’s what it took to reach our young people?“ (He was talking about reaching boomers and younger). These are the ones that led the “missional” movement and recruited the type of boomers who were like-minded in that philosophy, and it grew from there, or I should say, metastasized from there.
We can agree that the older church leaders (currently 60 years old and up) are currently in charge of most congregations. They, and not the “young” 18-34 year olds, are the biggest champions of the non-denominational model. If the “missional” efforts were successful, then the pews would be full of young people. Why aren’t church leaders called to account for promoting failed policies?
Question for the PLI and ULC leaders: It is obvious per the numbers that the Church Growth model has failed. “Would you be willing to return to hymnals and make the Church super-masculine if that’s what it took to reach our young people?” Well?
As a "boomer," I strongly protested all that contemporary nonsense, and still do. There are some vapid hymns that when sung, I have to go to the narthex because I can't stomach them.
I prefer mostly pre-1640 hymns, Lutheran of course, with many verses, and which actually TEACH us faith.
"Membership" means something different in non-denom big box churches. Their numbers are based on attendance often including internet audience. I wouldn't make too much about their perceived "growth."
Yep, the data is not precise. Actual worship attendance would be better, but it is even more scarce. The best data would be membership of givers who spend more than 2.5% of their AGI or who log hours in service.
True. And perhaps, like David's census, God isn't terribly interested in the numbers game. A great apostasy is to be expected in the latter days. Perhaps this is what we are experiencing. The question is not will the Son of Man find a big thriving church when He returns but will He find faith upon the earth?
This is beauty! :D The Magdeburg Confession mentions an ebb-and-flow of the numbers, but it's always God's People no matter the size.
By the way, ELCA also includes online counts in its stats.
Remember the Gary Larson cartoon with the three large dinosaurs laughing at the fuzzy little mammal all the while its starting to snow?
This probably won't be a popular viewpoint, but here goes.
The large churches flourished in the religious cretaceous period going way back to Martin Luther and maybe even the years just after Constantine's conversion. A majority of people in society at large professed some faith in Christ, attended church regularly and acknowledged Christian principles of honestly, hard work, family values. The old Boy Scout motto of "God, Church and Family." I'm admittedly asking a hard question: Did the church flourish because it was internally warm, or did it merely reflect the generally warm and humid environment that was conducive to it's growth? Cold blooded vs Warm blooded?
The large, hierarchically structured churches are by nature (more often that we want to admit) political animals. Synods, Sessions, Conventions and the like function under protocols designed to promote the general views of a majority of the membership. Could it be that the churches we're seeing in decline have ALWAYS been cold blooded, adapting to and reflecting their environment rather than shaping it? It's hard to think about, but the observations our esteemed editor have made certainly seem to fit the hypothesis.
Now that the societal climate is changing, we can see the problem that was always there but masked by a generally pervasive issue that "doctrine" was a product of what the majority of the membership FELT rather than generated under the Holy Spirit's guidance. Exceptions always can be found, but generally I'm thinking this might be true.
Could it be that large, political structured churches are just not well adapted for survival in the cold winters that true Christ followers must now face? The furry funny little animal portrayed in Larsen's cartoon is simply better adapted for things like catacomb worship. I'm reminded of Mr. and Mrs. Beaver and Mr. Tumnus hanging on in C.S. Lewis' "always winter and never Christmas" machinations of the evil White Witch in the first Narnia tale.
Non-denom churches, in my view, are better able to withstand the theological undercurrents that are everywhere eroding the foundations of large structured churches. Someone noted in comments that Orthodox churches seem to be exceptions to the rule; they are also stridently opposed to cultural inputs. For the most part they have built and maintained an edifice that refuses to incorporate the latest cultural fad or novel theological interpretations.
People looking for Christ in an increasingly hostile cultural climate are, by definition, hungry for a foundation that can't be moved when the "strong tides lift and the cables strain." Those of us that are serious about following Christ want to be anchored in a rock that CANNOT move. Sadly, in this commenter's view, the Western organized churches are increasingly unable to offer safe harbor from the storms of post-christian culture.
When a church body calls themselves "Synod, Inc." I think you see the problem. :D The question I'd like to have answered is "If we're supposed to be in the world but not OF the world, why are they trying to be accepted by the world." They keep trying to move the Rock out of the building to be more "community-friendly." I never understood why the LCMS had to change for the 1%. Why didn't the leadership just tell the Folk Mass people to start their OWN church and let the majority worship in peace. :D
When we look at the decline of the Church in the west, we tend to play into the devil's hands, looking for someone, perhaps in administrative leadership, (pastors/synodical leaders/or even congregational leaders). That is, we want to find someone to blame. We look at things programmatically, and we are tempted to believe that, (and this is something that the Synod and church members have been doing since I was in the ministry), when we have found the person(s) to blame, we have solved the problem. We attack the church, its leaders, or even the sheep themselves. Missional, (in the broadest sense), perspectives seem to drive the Church, so that, instead of looking to the Lord, His Word, we look to technique(s), that will cause the Church to grow. That might work in the business world for a brief time, make the bottom line increase, but it is contrary to the way mission works in the Church. Analysis can be helpful, but the Church has to realize that she is called to be faithful, not necessarily to grow, (cf 1Kings 19:18 Yet I have reserved seven thousand in Israel, all whose knees have not bowed to Baal, and every mouth that has not kissed him.”) We cannot see the Church, and we have come to believe, and push, throughout my 30+ years in the ministry, that programs, will grow the Church. It is a temptation that will bear little fruit, even as it did for Fuller's Church Growth Movement. (Cf the book Stealing Sheep, written in 2001, Stealing Sheep: The Church's Hidden Problems of Transfer Growth Paperback – January 1, 2001, by William Chadwick (Author), and the note on the back by a prof from Fuller who said that their efforts of truly growing the Church over a 30 year period, produced ZERO growth, but just, as Dr Alvin Schmidt used to say, was just "sheep shifting.")
When we see Non-denoms growing, we look at it programmatically, and ask what are they doing, and seek to imitate them, use their methods, (sounding more like Finney than any Confessional Lutheran), indiscriminately. Non-denoms are, by definition, unchurchly organizations, not, as Paul exhorts the Ephesians, Ephesians 4:1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace). "Endeavoring" better translated "being zealous to keep (treasure, guard), the unity of the Spirit, that is, to remain ONE confessionally. But the non-denoms do what they have always done, act as lone wolves, who will not engage the Church, trying to be inclusive and rejecting the notion of correcting false teaching, but setting up idiosyncratic "confessions" usually constructed by one man, the pastor, and that with the goal of proving to some who will listen, that they are inclusive. This kind of behavior is an appeal to the latest fads of human thinking, cf Christian Smith's new book, (Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America by Christian Smith (Author) 2025), in which he notes that the thing that people expect the Church to do is "get along." "Religion is good when it fosters community, social cooperation, peace, and harmony." [Smith, Christian. Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America (p. 50). (Function). Kindle Edition.]
This is one thing that people think Church is good for, and any who argue about religion, doctrine, etc, will fail to be, for those who are culturally bound, someplace they would want to go. Instead they will be attracted to those places who define themselves as being outside/above the messy work of being zealous to keep, treasure, guard, the "unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." They stand alone, and people join them, not because they care about the Church, (capital C), but because they do not want to be part of a church that understands this is a battle, not against flesh and blood, but against the devil. They are unchurchly organizations, built on human asperations and machinations. Hence they stand alone, or with a small group of people who do not fight against doctrine, but agree to disagree. Remember, the LCMS split in the 70s was not just about the bible, but about the doctrine of the Church and ecumenism/fellowship/cooperation. (Cf Kurt Marquart's Anatomy of an Explosion).
Secondly, the Church has been coopted by therapeutic ideology/methods, which is extremely legalistic, tending to cancel culture. The therapeutic culture that we live in becomes an authority that stands above Scripture, does not allow pastors/churches to speak the word clearly, but the pastor must become therapeutic in his preaching because, as Smith wrote last year, "A second good most Americans think religion can provide is emotional and psychological support." [Smith, Christian. Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America (p. 48). (Function). Kindle Edition.] When pastors do that, they are not able to speak to Christians, as Christians, who depend on the Word, the whole council of God, to create and sustain the Church. Even Tim Wood interview with Ahlman (Why the LCMS Is in Freefall — and What Must Change), ended with Tim Wood losing connection, and the hosts, running immediately to the old saw of meeting "felt needs" of people. In December, Ahlman spoke to a DCE about a book about leadership, written by a Fuller Psych prof, Rare Leadership, which was nothing but therapeutic posturing and in some ways, sadly lacking in biblical clarity. They are accommodating to this second good that the world defines as primary for the Church, emotional and psychological support. While this might work for a time, it does not create disciples, but clients in the therapeutic society.
The Church, using techniques learned from the world will gather hearers, but the therapeutic message that the world expects, (for to the world, the therapeutic is the new authority, that which defines good and evil, so to speak), and it will join for a time, but then, like any other human organization, will fail, even as the more liberal, culturally defined liberal churches in the stats prove, will decline. Crowds will come and go, read the bible, but there will be those who will stand, confess, and declare the Word, which will keep them to eternity. (Cf the temptation of Jesus, "man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of God"). The churches that are declining look like businessmen looking for the latest hook to attract people, rather than faithfully standing on the Rock, who is Christ.
When I was a student at BIOLA (Baptist institution) in post graduate apologetics in the late 90s, we had a common observation. There are/were people in the church who are emotional and not intellectually grounded. We firmly believed they would become bombs 💣 , those ready to leave the church the moment it no longer felt good to be a Christian.
I became Lutheran LCMC seven years ago when searching for a choir to sing in. High church was scary to approach due the sexual corruption in mainline church practice & doctrine(Episcopalian). Now a member of LCMS.
I do wonder are we just seeing people drift away, who don’t want to pay a cultural price for being associated with Christianity?
They no longer ‘feel good,’ in this ‘negative world.’ To borrow Aaron Renns’ outline.
The notion that they could become bombs is related to what we see, culturally, in which people use their feelings to judge what is right/wrong, good/evil, and therefore, feelings/emotions become authoritative over the Word. Their emotions become their epistemological and hermeneutical touchstones, rather than the Word, which is the truth and its own interpreter.
Cultural price is rooted in the marketing of the Church, and when that becomes definitive, we will see what we saw by many marketers, eg Target, TV, etc.
As a lifelong LCMS Lutheran, who loved those 2 years of catechism (memorizing Luther's Small Catechism TWICE), I saw being Lutheran as being In the world, but not rooted in this world. Thus, I rejected movies and TV, and gambling, partying, etc., and focused on reading to learn more about my beliefs and those of other religions. I'm so glad I did so, as I was able to see heresies and mistakes for what they are. I think part of the LCMS problem is we do not demonstrate that we are "set apart." We need more focus on what FAITH truly is, and how to truly live it. And it starts at home.
Deep structural reform across all aspects of the LCMS is likely what is needed to keep the synod going. That being said, its probably very unlikely considering the prevailing culture. Ad Crucem does a noble job of covering all these issues and he even suggests novel, realistic solutions to the problems. The vast majority of the "right wing" are Buckleyite conservatives that couldnt even conserve the womens restroom. Its always punch right, racism, groupism, antisemitism, ageism, etc ad nauseum kvecthing forever. There is only losing to the leftist takeover when this is the culture. Lutherans need to develop Lutheran culture that is unapologetic, pious, biblical, confessional and in line with God's created order.
Wow, as a "boomer" I am deeply offended... LOL
It would be interesting to know, why the PCA is growing while other confessional church bodies are dramatically shrinking. May be that the work with the children and the use and also the struggle with the ideological surroundings are important issues. Lutheranism as it is presenting itself in most times presents itself as a one-man-show, the general priesthood of all believers, also an important part of our doctrine, has very few impacts on congregational reality. That might be an important point too. Pastors should contact those who leave to know the reasons, since that would be really important.
I, too, am very interested to understand why the PCA is growing while everyone else seems to be shrinking. It is relatively conservative as a whole, and from what I've heard and read, young men who leave nondenominational churches who are drawn to Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy are much more likely to become PCA than Lutheran. I know there are some leaders in PCA like the late Timothy Keller who were influential beyond their denomination. Does anyone have more information explaining this trend?
I'm not saying I hold to Calvinist theology. I'm a confessional Lutheran, and my father was an LCMS pastor. I'm simply asking, with Roland above, why the PCA is growing "while other confessional church bodies are dramatically shrinking." It's a question worth considering, as Lutheran churches fade away.
The more relevant question to ask regarding all churches is, “What does God think about the decline of the visible Christian Church?”
My guess might include the preponderance of false teaching in most churches. Our Lord in His high priestly prayer said: “Thy Word is truth”.
Just curious what the ELCA curve would look like if LCMC, NALC, etc., were added back in. Similar to Confessional decline, sharper, or less steep?
LCMC (Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ)
Roughly 150,000–170,000 baptized members across approximately 900+ congregations. LCMC skews toward smaller, often rural or ex-urban congregations, so average parish size pulls the total down even with a relatively large congregation count.
NALC (North American Lutheran Church)
Roughly 100,000–130,000 baptized members across approximately 400 congregations. The NALC tends to have somewhat larger average congregations than LCMC, partly reflecting its roots in larger ELCA departures post-2009.
The net effect will be negligible. The line would effectively stay unchanged.
Thanks! The numbers for these two are smaller than I thought.
For far too long the church has chased the shiny, the innovative, and the haters of Christ instead of faithfully raising and retaining children in the historic Christian faith and its practice and traditions. Against a 38.6% loss of ELCA members over the past 20 years the Amish have grown 97% in that same period.
That's right: the Amish population doubles in size every 20 years. https://vdmadave.substack.com/p/church-anti-growth
Changing the sign in the parking lot has little chance of overcoming decades worth of hubristic rebellion against Christ's command to "feed my lambs".
Dare I say that the outcomes we are witnessing are not only pragmatic consequences but are the judgement of God? Perhaps less innovation and more repentance is in order.