Is The Influence Of Our Churches Diminishing?

The Diminishing Influence Of Our Churches In A Post-Modern World

(Written by Kevin A. Hall   04.19.2017)

I conducted a study of the diminishing influence of our churches within this post-modern generation recently based on an excellent Doctoral Dissertation. I am unable to share the resource, but found it necessary to document a few takeaways which are key to our present attitude of “doing church”.

There is no doubt, that the perceived influence of the church has diminished over the past few decades. One contributing factor has been philosophical thought especially the influence of Post-Modernism upon this last generation. Mike McDaniel makes a very good case about the demise of Christianity post-Christendom. Its effect is global, reaching even what may seem to be remote parts of our world with the ushering in of Globalism. I can tell you that even on an Island of less than 5000 people where I presently reside, we see the effects of Post-Modernism. Churches on this island are fairly empty. It is not uncommon for the average Sunday Morning attendance to be less than 17. One church I attended had  10 in attendance. There were 2 males over 40 years old, 6 females over 60 years old and 2 children under 11 years old. Where is the younger generation? Working adults under 40? Strong young men between the ages of 16- 30? How about the children? How can our churches be missing their precious laughter and presence? Travelling around the countryside I was pleasantly surprised to find “the missing”. Schools were filled to capacity with children and young people. Young men were on the streets in the afternoon playing basketball. Kids were up and about on Saturdays. Ever so often I would see a young lady walking on the street. I met them in the places of business and in the laundromats; also by the beach or the Bayfront with their babies. The young men I found at the barber shops and the liquor store. They often congregate in groups, usually in someone’s yard. Thankfully, it seems they are not running wild on the streets. There seem to be a method to their gathering. They are almost invisible, but they are here…and in large numbers. It seems that most people stay indoors. Crime is low, but there is a high percentage of babies being born to single family homes. A large percent of the church’s target audience is staying home, and this trend is not uncommon to Christendom in general.

 Christianity used to be the center of all thought and processes. Now, it must be assumed that Christianity will no longer have a voice in the major influential pillars of society – Education, Politics and the social and moral fabric of society. This is very sad, considering the fact that Jesus’ model for ministry was Incarnational – The Gospel translated into a culture. McDaniel suggests that there needs to be a response from the church. If we are to affect our society as Christ intended, then there must be a serious revision of our missional strategies and methods, because we are seeing the demise of Christianity. “Gone are the days of a dominant Christian worldview” (27). We see this in (1) Decreasing attendance in our churches – millions are abandoning institutional Christianity; (2) Church existence has decreased – Our world has become more hostile toward churches, resulting in more church closures, fewer church plantings and an increase in the “not-churched”; (3) Loose spirituality is replacing structured Christianity – There is the ever-increasing thought that Christianity is too rigid. The post-modern generation is seeking spirituality without attachment, and a more tolerant spirituality. The focus now, with the greater margin of separation of church and state is the acceptance of a “more self-identified faith” versus a Christo-centric moral and spiritual compass. Organized religion is on the decline.

With post-Christendom taking root, “the sovereignty of Christianity as rule of the land is in the past”. Post-Modernism may seem to be having a greater effect than the Restoration period. In most cultures, Christianity has become “invisible”. That being said, the writer proposes the need for an adaptation of strategies and methods. How else will the Church regain its influence? After all, the Church’s business is People. It used to be that the church embraced a “sending culture”, to a more “pastoral-conventional model” – ministry mostly within the four walls of the church. While this is a necessary part of the function of the church, the message of the gospel must be shared in all areas of society. We must begin to ask questions such as “How do we enculturate our world with the message of the gospel while maintaining its integrity”? How do we best express this life transformational message to a world that is still dying? Even as the edification and maturing of the believers remain the mandate of the church, evangelism is also its responsibility as the Lord issued the mandate to “Be witnesses”.

The writer presented a few strategies and methods as described below that will help the Church to adapt to our changing culture:

   No doubt, we must continue to plant churches. We must be missional. We must consider church planting models that achieve Missio Dei. We must move from a culture of “Come see on Sundays” to a renewed commitment to redeeming God’s creation during an entire week – This means a renewed commitment to planting churches and sending Christian witnesses.

   We may consider adapting a missional church planting model such as the successful ‘Centered Set’. This model allows the church a bit more freedom, creativity and fluidity. The methodology is negotiable, but the core commitments remain protected. This model allows for the translating of the Gospel message.

   We may consider employing a ‘Multi-site’ church planting strategy – This is the fastest growing method of use presently in the United States. Within this model, churches extend themselves into other communities, capitalizing on brand, shared leadership, vision, budget, administration and oversight. This may be the fastest way to get started, but requires more capital and an obvious higher degree of organization. This model is most effective in higher socio-economic status (SES) communities. These church plants have a target goal of self-sustainability.

Another model to consider is the ‘3-Self Reproductive’ model – This model focuses on self- governing, self-sustaining and a self-propagating culture. This one focuses on high capacity reproduction. Human resource support is achieved through “Hiving”. It is most successful with a set starter number of people (50 ideally), with the mother church committed to the “health of the church-planters”.

The last model to consider is the Simple Church Reproduction model – This is the more practical way to go. Less pressure, cost effective, less expectations. In this model, we find “house churches”, much like in the Apostolic era. They begin lean and small. This group is usually more culturally diverse and spontaneous. In the previously mentioned models, success is tied to the carryover of the mother church’s ethos, pathos and logos. Simple church models are a bit more relaxed. According to McDaniel, what has been proven successful in this model is proof of ‘DNA’ transfer – ‘Divine Truth; Nurturing Relationships and an intentional focus on the Apostolic Mission. 

There is major value in considering Missional Strategies and Methods. Reality in our churches means our leaders do get older with time, and experience burnout. Some are very satisfied with maintaining the status quo – Do not rock the boat. But there are others who genuinely wish to do more for kingdom, but do not have both the resources nor the personnel to achieve their dreams of becoming missional. McDaniel suggests embracing the Incarnational Missional Ministry strategy. I love this one. Jesus was incarnational. He entered this world, partook of flesh, lived and moved among the people and sacrificed Himself for the people. In dwelling among the people His ministry was both transformational and Incarnational. He did not adapt the pastoral- traditional ministry model with a top-down leadership structure. Daily ministry was on the streets – He selected ministry leaders that were a true composite of the community (fishermen, tax collector, lower SES folks). He cared about and for them – prayed for them and with them; fed them; defended them; taught them; corrected them; inspired them; conducted a healing ministry. This does not sound like the way we “do church” in many of our communities.

Also significant, was that Jesus reproduced Himself, then “sent disciples out”; our equivalent of sending out missionaries and evangelists. This Incarnational model will address some of the concerns we are currently experiencing with the appetites of the post-modern generation. This approach means identifying ways to build bridges. This is more than just having weekly prayer meetings, Sunday church, Bible studies and Youth activities. It means building relationships outside the church and inside. It is reducing the barriers between believers and unbelievers; it is tolerance without compromise. McDaniel’s research showed mission successful assemblies are fully engaged in both long and short term missions efforts in focused areas (medical, teaching, business, construction and art). This is not new. Mission strategies for decades have always made in-roads through tent-making efforts. The difference is that to move beyond the four walls, and to recover some of the influence the church has lost, we must consider a renewed focus on teaching the doctrine, addressing the issue of duality (the separation of sacred versus secular), and employing methods that engage our communities. This issue of dual-living is huge! Many of us Christians have a difficult time integrating faith with work, recreation, education...our whole lives. We set up "invisible walls" for fear that unbelievers will "infect us". Maybe "infect is too strong a word. Ok, we fear that unbelievers will influence us away from God, so we develop an  holier than thou attitude in their world. I'm not saying that we may not be influenced by the world, but how else will they hear if we don't "dwell among them"? Can we be Spirit-empowered enough like Christ to "incarnate" into people's spaces without sinning? Get into the schools, get on the boards, join committees, run for offices, write laws, get into law enforcement, participate in sports....endless opportunities to "incarnate" and take the message to them versus waiting for them to come to us. Some never will. 3^rd Place strategies may be another avenue to consider as we find ways to plant churches. Think of the Starbucks model...My how we flock to Starbucks, both for product and the experience. They have successfully connected with their target customer. 3rd Place strategies for the church includes creating more relaxed, less guarded ways to connect with friends and strangers outside of the church building. Lot's of work to do in kingdom building. The Apostle Paul essentially adapted to his audience by becoming "all things to anyone for the objective of winning them to Christ". How's it going in your part of God's Kingdom?

Google Images