There was another article in the Chronicle that hasn’t gotten much attention, but I’d like to give it some. It compared the growth rate of instrumental Christian Churches/Churches of Christ with the rate of decline in non-instrumental Churches of Christ. Here are the pertinent quotes and stats from the article:
The number of members and congregations of non-instrumental churches of Christ fell 1 percent in the last three years, according to the latest edition of Churches of Christ in the United States.
Some of the decline could be attributed to a cappella churches that started using instruments since 2003 and fell off the list, Royster said. Since 1980, the overall U.S. population has risen about 25 percent, but the non-instrumental fellowship has increased only about 2 percent, said Flavil Yeakley, director of the Harding Center for Church Growth in Searcy, Ark.
By comparison, instrumental Christian Churches/Churches of Christ grew by 19.6 percent in the 1990s, the second-fastest rate among 15 religious groups in the U.S. that identify themselves as “Christian” and have 1 million or more adherents, Yeakley said.
“Only the Mormons grew faster,” Yeakley said.
While it appears that non-instrumental Churches of Christ are struggling to grow, instrumental Christian Churches/Churches of Christ are growing at a nice pace. I’m amazed at how many HUGE Christian Churches there are out there that many of us have even never heard of. Non-instrumental Churches of Christ have relatively few mega-churches compared to instrumental Christian Churches.
Here’s my question: what do you think accounts for the difference in growth between our two groups? I’ve got several theories but I don’t want to share them until I hear from you.
(Disclaimer: In asking this question I’m not assuming for a minute that church size is the most important indicator of spiritual growth or health. However, it does indicate something. I’m asking this question from more of a sociological point of view. )
65 responses so far...
I don’t claim to know much….but it would seem to me that accepting instrumental music means that the overall temperment of the church and church leadership is open to new and different ways of doing things. Many of us in this fellowship (non-instrumental CofC) are frustrated by a mindset that is stuck in the 1950’s (nothing new here). And while we don’t want to give up our roots completely we will search for a spirit of love and acceptance in which we can worship while being true to those roots……and then, we are no longer ashamed or afraid to invite our friends and neighbors to church with us. Knowing that your guest will not be offended but rather will be accepted in love will cause growth from the members who want to share what they have.
Of course that is my view from the outside looking in….
I’m amazed at their growth also. I’m not real familiar with the different Independent Christian Churches so I am not asking this sarcastically, but in all those megachurches how many of their membership would they consider actively involved members (attending small groups, bible classes, service projects, missions, etc…) as opposed to those who just attend a large worship service on Sunday mornings and then disappear?
I ask this because the congregation I minister to is big, but not megachurch, and that is my constant struggle. I know this isn’t answering your question but it is something that should be asked in both tribes.
I would agree with what Donna said about the temperment of the church’s willingness to do certain things by accepting practices that the non-CofC’s do not.
I would add that I think that instrumental churches usually have that one thing that is different…the music. I think people relate to instrumental music more than A Cappella. It’s what they see all the time and hear when they turn on their radios, so of course a church uses instruments in worship music don’t they? They think we are odd for not using them…especially when most A Cappella churches don’t have very good singing. Some are blessed to have a Zoe or a Free Indeed leading their worship every week, but for every Zoe church, there are 100 bad praise teams that just shouldn’t be doing it not to mention all the single song leaders still dragging the congregation behind them…if I want to hear “I Can Only Imagine” it had better be by Mercy Me or at least be lead with instruments…the A Cappella version sounds hilarious (in a bad way)!
If we don’t adopt this “new wineskin” in our music, we are just moving farther away from the mainstream culture which expects it when they visit somewhere for the first time.
Mike,
I agree that instrumental music is much more appealing to a broader range of people, but I think the music only serves to get people in the door. It’s the quality of the content of service, the leadership of the leaders, and the love of the congregation that keeps people coming back.
We’ve experienced this at my church.
I think Big Mike Lewis is right. I attend a merged cofc and ICC (Independent christian) and we use both instrumental and acappella music in our worship.
I would say that just because a church uses instrumental music does not make that church open to issues. An instrumental christian church can be very closed minded!
That’s why I think Mike has the right idea that the unchurched don’t appreciate the acappella uniqueness since they are exposed daily to musical instruments in most venues.
I am interested in what you think and will be waiting to hear that…..mainly because I would like to know how these churches bring in the unchurched!
Without a doubt, the music helps to bring in people. I’ve experienced that my church. We’re a larger-sized church that uses a full band, and many first-time guests put on their communication that they came because “they heard how good the music was”.
While music gets them in the door, it’s not what keeps them. In order, here’s what we found after surveying 600 people who have called our church “home” in the last two years. We asked one question, which was - what keeps you coming back to Christ the King Church?
The answers…
1. Teaching
2. Dynamic Children’s ministry
3. Small groups
4. Leadership of the church
5. Friendliness of the people
Music wasn’t even mentioned once in 600 surveys.
I think that instrumental music is important because its Biblical, but I also don’t think it the big attraction many poeple make it out to be.
Like I said in my first response to Wade’s post… Everything rises and falls with leadership.
My eyes were opened at the ACU Lectureship this week. Listening to Bob Russell (Southeast Christian Church) talk it occured to me that our Christian Church brethren are more faithful to the original restoration plea than we are. There message is simple - “We are Christians only.” People in a post-denominational world are drawn to this, while they perceive us as a mainstream denomination. And that perception is our fault!
I’m sorry I’ve forgotten the name of Bob Russell’s book on church growth — it is recommended. If accapella churches would incorporate even 10% of what he suggests in that book - they would see improvement in evangelism, member maturity in Christ and overall church health and growth. As someone mentioned early on - it’s about leadership. One of the largest complaints I hear about elderships in general is their extreme close-mindedness. Recommend a good book to them and they give you that deer in the headlights look — wondering why they need to read anything when they already know all they need to know.
Are there any differences besides instruments between the denominations? I’m part of the 1% fleeing the coC, and my issue was how women are held back from exercising God-given talents in all the coC’s I could find in Austin. I actually miss the a capella, bad overpowering bass and all.
Wade, as you probably know, Rick Atchley and Dave Stone addressed this VERY question last Spring at Pepperdine. Rick’s take was that it comes down to leadership. Christian church elders EMPOWER the staff and ministers to lead……c of C elders micro-manage to keep the peace, therefore status-quo rules the day. Status-quo won’t cut it, hence people leaving in droves. Our Shepherds have got to learn to empower….instead of being THE power. Find a c of C that is growing by leaps and bounds, and you will find an empowering leadership there. I get to witness it weekly if not daily at the Downtown church here in Searcy! What a blessing!
DU
Years ago one of our Elders stepped down when he felt the things he was taught about the church of Christ were becoming foggy at the congregation. He almost meant it as a derogatory comment but he said, “You are changing the things that made me convert from Mormonism years ago.” Locally the fastest growing church is a c of C of the traditional persuasion. Most of its members are probably not new converts (I can’t say for sure) but unhappy people at churches that were changing their member’s paradigms. All this to say that they hold on to people cause they really believe what they believe in and hold it to be truth. The problem in many of our churches, is that we have muddied the lines for so long we are not even sure what we believe in, in regards to doctrine and that of course brings instability which in turn frustrates are members. Maybe the same thing has happened in the ICC and of course we have no clue about it. But my experience was they were just like us except with big floppy ears and small cotton ball tails so I had to leave quickly before they took me to the field and bopped my eyes out.
You are correct, Sam.
The music gets them to sit for an hour, but there has to be other things in place to keep them there…I think that a more open-minded leadership brings about good things to keep people interested long enough to stick around.
I would agree with those 5 things you listed also. I didn’t mean to sound like music was the end-all for keeping people…but a very good way to relate to unchurched people.
Bob’s book is called WHEN GOD BUILDS A CHURCH.
I just think that in many ways the CoC is built for retention, how can we keep our kids/members. In the CoC’s Also in those I experienced the focus was not the unbeliever but what they characterized as the misguided denominational world. I think these go together.
Who’s right, who’s wrong, who’s a denomination and who’s not, who’s fault is it and who is not at fault?…I’m glad God is bigger than all that…I am just going to try to make it through the day loving somebody like Jesus has loved this woman full of sin..Peace out…
Music is only part of worship. Instruments or not, it is what is in the heart. I have been to some instrumental churches that let the band get in the way of worship, some acapella churches don’t staff for acapella singing (bad praise team, bad song leading) and that gets in the way also. I think people are drawn to a church when they feel loved, connected, and worship is a great experience, even fun! I look foward to the day kids beg to go to church! Lynn
By the way, did you know that Flavil Yeakley used to be a member at Garnett? Lynn
I agree with Sam that leadership goes a long ways, but for me it went further than that. The non-instrumental worship at Sterling Drive Church of Christ didn’t scare me off. In fact, I grew to appreciate the freedom I had in that worship enviornment. When Hillary and I moved out here to Moses Lake, we visited another Church of Christ that also didn’t use instruments. Though the people were real friendly, they kept an anxious eye on us to see if we were going to cause any trouble. We had no intention of returning to that Church before we arrived, but if we had been embraced with the hand of fellowship and community, we probably would have stuck around a couple more Sundays.
We’ve been a part of Moses Lake Christian Church for almost 6 years because of the teaching and community we have there. I feel as though my gifts are needed to serve the body. I have a place in my church and I’m needed. If we got rid of the music, I would still stick around.
my experience w/ the Christian church and her missionaries leads me to believe they have an active doctrine of the Trinity. I believe this is a root cause of God’s blessing on their work. Their worship, preaching, charity, etc. is a result of serving a communal God. Instrumentation (at its best) adds color and a broader expression of our hearts to a God of variety who wants us to seek him fully and without reservation. My guess, and it is a guess, is that instrumental worship in the Christian Church is providing a more congruant form of worship for newcomers, colorful worship to a Trinity who lives in full-color.
The CofC is having a hard time asking new Christians to trade in their full-color emotions and longings for monochrome worship. But again, at the core, is a limited view of Trinity (me included).
-Russ
Many good thoughts express so far and I think Sam was especially on target in the first reply with respect to leadership.
Intentional church planting is one of the reasons I believe ICC’s have grown so much and it takes leaders willing to do that. For whatever reason church plants that build outreach/evangelism into their DNA tend to reach people while churches in maintenance mode tend to not. Stadia and a couple other church plant groups have really lead the way for the ICC in my view. CofC’s are starting to catch on it appears, but from what I’ve read it’s mostly just the more innovative CofCs. I know Richland Hills is working on a plant with Stadia (though I dont think it won’t wear the CofC name on the sign and it will be instrumental).
Personally, I was part of a non growing CofC for many years and the leadership there couldn’t grasp the need for a plant - the church was already there. I suppose lots of that gets into the same things Wade discussed in the emerging CofC series.
Wade,
YOUTH. Youth accounts, at least in part, for the difference in growth between instr/non-instr CoC. I don’t just mean kids, but a generation spanning from middle school to thirty-somethings with kids. It’s hard to argue that these generations are always the future of our society. What message are we sending them? Are we connecting with them, or losing them?
I feel that it’s not so much the instruments that BRING them, as the fact that not having instruments PREVENT them from entering our doors. To this “lost” demographic, not having instruments may signal an intolerance to change, a reluctance towards growth and overall acceptance. Assuming these statistics are correct (and I have no reason to believe they are not) these “perceptions” may actually result in the stagnant growth statistics for non-inst CoC’s.
Then again, who doesn’t like a good guitar solo from time to time?
(Another disclaimer) - I should say also that there is something to be said for tradition. There is connection in tradition, connection to past generations that is invaluable. Cover your eyes, here comes a hokey cliche - “if you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.” I love the a cappella worship, but a Both/And approach here rather than Either/Or may be more effective in our efforts to “connect” as Jesus has commissioned us to do.
What do I think accounts for the difference in growth between our two groups?
1. Cultural relevance, as a lot have already commented.
2. More enjoyable worship, which is really just #1 restated. I think there’s a common stance among hard-line cofC’ers that worship should NOT be enjoyable. If it does, it’s being done for the wrong reasons. That’s sad. I bought this line for most of my life, and the guilt kept me ‘in line’. I’ve since dropped that shackle. Our enjoyment in worship participation and God’s enjoyment of our worship aren’t mutually exclusive. My most treasured moments as a dad are when my kids are enjoying themselves whether among themselves, or when loving on me while ‘rasslin’ on the floor. I believe my Father feels the same. He wants us to enjoy loving on him.
3. The weakness of the command/example/necessary inference (CENI) proof/justification. The CENI simply became impossible for me to defend because it is impossible to apply consistently. I grew weary of giving that weak reason to my friends who found the acappella worship interesting, but mostly amusing.
I’d really, REALLY recommend (again) as a great read/study, Milton Jones’ short book, “The Other Side of the Keyboard”. Order one from College Press or pick one up at the workshop. It was $8 well spent.
To all–Your responses have been AMAZING. Thanks for stepping out and taking a stab at this question. I don’t think I have much left to add.
Sam–I think you stole the show. Have I ever told you how much I miss working with you?
I have been told by a couple of friends who have preached for churches in both groups that Christian Church folk tend to be nicer than Church of Christers. There’s an argumentativeness embedded in Church of Christ DNA that can’t help but show up from time to time. I know that this generalization, along with all others, is wrong (except of course for the generalization that all generalizations are wrong–that one’s right–or is it?–good grief–stupid postmodern philosophy), but I’d be curious to hear about other experiences out there.
I’ve been reading some restoration movement history this week and I think there’s something basic that gives rise to all of the things that have been mentioned here. I’ll do a post on it later after I’ve done a bit more research.
Might a greater emphasis on church planting have something to do with the CC’s greater rate of growth? Stadia seems to be planting churches everywhere, focusing on specific regions, people groups, etc. It seems like at least in the new millennium, the centralization and organization that a quasi-missionary society brings has allowed the CC to be intentional about discipleship in the mission field called North America.
Here’s a question: Are we talking about net growth or conversion growth? Pretty much any group can net some serious transfer growth by appealing to consumer Christians, but it takes mission-minded communities of faith to reach the unreached.
Along these lines, are “more meaningful” worship styles (whatever that means…) really the main factor in an increase in numbers? By all accounts, folks today see right through “vibrant worship” but want authentic experiences with people to whom they can be accountable. The “worship revolution” seems to be on its way out, by all accounts. This makes me think that if instrumental music is the difference, we’re counting transfer growth and not conversion growth.
OK the question is a bit awkward to me. Reading the original article and subsequent comments it seems the impression is since the churches of Christ who oppose instrumental music (BTW so did John Calvin, Martin Luther, Albert Barnes, Charles Spurgeon, Joseph Bingham, Willaim Barclay, Andrew Fuller, John Weisley, Adam Clarke as well as restoration leaders such as Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone and Benjamin Franklin just to name a few) are not growing at the same pace as instrumental congregations some how the worship is more pure where there is greater numerical growth? Is more proper where the numbers are higher? I don’t get it. If that is the standard, populace opinion and church growth numbers are the indicator of church faithfulness then what does that say about the Mormons which the article notes is growing at the fastest pace. Should we start adopting Mormon practices and theology so that we can better appeal to the populace? I hardly believe even the most progressive of commentors to this column would advocate such.
The impression I get from these posts is that some how since I believe musical instruments don’t belong in the christian worship I’m just an “ignorant legalist” who can’t get with the times. Hey may be I am.
Last September (2005) when I was in San Antonio, I made a visit to a Sunday service at Oak Hills Church (pastored by Max Lucado), a church with CoC heritage, and there I was, in an non-instrumental acapella worship service with almost a thousand others! Granted, the other services they had were instrumental, but I found it fascinating to experience worship without instruments. And has been cited in the comments already, there are so many other factors for church growth and health, besides music or non-music. One thing can be said: there’s probably no growing church that has bad music, so non-instrumental is an easy way to take that factor out of the equation!
The only problem I have with this list:
1. Teaching
2. Dynamic Children’s ministry
3. Small groups
4. Leadership of the church
5. Friendliness of the people
is that the last church I was at supposedly did all this, but isn’t growing. Could it be that some churches focus on outward appearances and practices? If a church perceives itself as friendly, but only befriends people that are just like them, are they really friendly?
I think that we assume by comparing Christian Church and C of C that “church” is the right answer. What about the fact that worship as we have done it for the past umpteenhumndred years is nowhere found in the NT at all. You won’t find a “worship service” like we have grown up in anywhere in the NT. O, you will find bits and pieces, but nowhere will you find in the NT a prescription for worship. It ain’t there!
The issues that separate us are from the devil. As long as we spen dour time fighting about instruments and a bazillion other issues, we take our eyes off the real issues like loving God and loving our neighbors. We need to come together to celebrate Jesus, then leave our comfort zones, get out there where those who need Jesus are and show them what real life is all about.
“Church” is not the point, Jesus is.
Wade,
I can tell you one small piece of it. I was in the c of c fold for 24 years. The whole time I felt I was constantly being evaluated as to whether or not I was “faithful” (whatever that means). And during those same years, I was had same suspicious spirit. As you know, I have been in the ICC for almost 5 years. In that time I have sensed none of that critical spirit and have rejoiced that God has empowered me to let it go!
A related point: the hermeneutic that says guitars are off limits in worship is the reason for the critical spirit.
In response to Mike’s post (#29), you’re right on in your assessment. The question is not “are you doing these things?” the question is:
What are the measuring sticks for success in these areas of your church life?
The typical CoC model that I’ve experienced aims at the following categories…
1. Keeping the people we already hve coming back for more.
2. Keeping those people happy.
3. Not upsetting our relatives who attend other CoC’s.
4. Having these ministries operate such a way as not to offend any out-of-town guests who attend a CoC elsewhere.
5. Our own happiness/enjoyment/comfort.
A church who wants to be successful in reaching out to it’s community does things in the exzact opposite manner. A church like this does the ministries I mentioned in my first post with the following aims and goals in mind…
1. Encouraging the people we already have to choose discomfort so that comfort can be offered to those “who are about to come”. (Expectancy)
2. Making sure that happiness for our people means making our guests and friends happy. (Hospitality)
3. Being concerned only with needs of the lost and broken of our community, and not some other church or group of people (Priority)
4. Placing our own comfort/desire/happiness/enjoyment in the back seat and placing the needs and even some of the wants of the lost and broken of our community in the front seat.
* It doesn’t water down our message, it amplifies it.
* It doesn’t render the gospel weak, instead, it allows it to be strong.
* It doesn’t make weaken our fellowship, but gives it purpose and meaning beyond ourselves.
* It doesn’t make us comfortable, but it does make us grow.
Sorry for my awful grammar/spelling… It was early on Sunday AM when I wrote that post.
Why have non-instrumental churches of Christ grown?
Probably for some good reasons and some bad ones.
I still haven’t been able to figure out how the Republicans took over Arkansas.
But within a few weeks of each other, two small churches of Christ in the central part of my state have hosted what I will call “stick to the old paths” lectureships. And I’m afraid among the bad reasons that our fellowship is growing would be just that: lots of folks feel secure and comfortable in a place where they are absolutely, undeniably, God-guaranteeingly right about every question of doctrine and they are therefore saved.
They feel that the world is uncertain and people who raise questions are annoying and people who continue to press questions about what we have always believed just have to be wrong to do so. Therefore they cocoon.
Sorry to sound a dark note.
Oops. Didn’t get to finish before I accidentally posted!
Folks who can’t stand to be cocooned escape this restrictive environment and shoot for the greatest freedom available. I think instrumental churches of Christ have benefited from than pendulum swing, and that’s why they’ve grown.
Instrumental churches are likely to embrace other opportunities (which the non-instrumentals would term “innovations”) to express praise and openness and new paths.
And - this is just my opinion, mind you - there are some things to be said for non-vocal music in expressing things words simply cannot express. The “Hallelujah Chorus” just isn’t the same without the trumpet fanfare at its close. David wrote Psalms with interludes, and I’m sure they’re not the same without them. I can think of half-a-dozen current Christian songs that simply lose their flow if you remove a bridge or two.
Is a commitment to a capella music only the kind of consistency that is a hobgoblin of little minds?
Apparently more and more people within our fellowship are beginning to wonder.
While my personal preference is instrumental worship, it is interesting to me that the list mentioned above from the 600 surveyed does not include anything about music style and Tom Rainers research also seems to indicate that worship styple (accapella or non) seems fairly irrelevant to whether people make a church their home.
Honestly, I get a little nervous at this type of research and the results because it usually has such “consumer” overtones and that is not how I see church. What if we really were joining God where he was working and our goal was kingdom living and if that meant instrumental worship in certain settings and accapella in others, that is what we did. What if our only driving force was to further the kingdom without the agenda of issues…(a little idealistic, I know).
However, I think we will overlook the greater issue if we do not take seriously the comment about the atmosphere, tolerance, leadership style etc that usually comes organically in a church that is instrumental compared to the argumentative, cautious, defensive atmosphere that can be (not always) present in the accapella movement (of which I am a part). These are sweeping generalizations I know so do not stone me, but I think there is truth here.
This is an interesting topic and some well thougth out responses. As someone from another church background it is a fascinating discussion. I have a few thoughts if you’d permit me to post them here.
1. Leadership is important, but everything does not rise and fall on it. Teaching is great, but education does not change lives. Children’s ministry is a good value as long as you actually value children. Most children’s ministries are bait for what the church actually values… parents. Small groups are a great, but small groups often exist for a purpose designated by church leadership and far too often result in something other than community. Friendliness is always nice, but God’s call on our lives is not to be friendly but to serve others.
Then there is music. In my worlds the question is always, traditional or contemporary or postmodern. Not really all that different from no-instruments or instruments I suppose. I don’t think this matters either.
2. Because a church has big numbers doesn’t equate to health.
The crux of the matter is two things.
What does your church actually value? Does it value it’s stance on music? Does it value the people within it’s walls? Does it value power? money? comfort? safety?
God changes a church. People can make things happen, but God changes people’s hearts. Music or no music. I don’t think it matters. Teaching, leadership etc…
Ok. I’m reading over my post here and it’s coming across harsh… Trust me that is not my intent. It’s just a few obseravations. If I’m off topic, let me know. I am just a guest in the conversation.
Sam,
That was the response I was looking for. I knew you would be able to articulate the things that I was thinking better than I could put them and without me sounding harsh toward my past.
Thinking about other people is the answer. Who thinks more about others before their own comfort? Maybe it’s the Christian Churches. Let’s be missional, then we’ll grow, but not because we were trying to grow, but because we wanted to love God with everything we got and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
This is what the CofC has been missing a lot of the time because they are focusing too much on programs and worship style.
Wade,
Randy Harris published a series of articles in Wineskins several years ago that talks about your idea of argumentativeness being embedded in our DNA. He says that because of the times in which the American Restorationist Movement was born, we are prone to hold both a high view of Scripture and a high view of Man (as in “mankind”).
Most Christian groups hold one or the other.
We tend to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. And we lean a little in the Pelagian direction when it comes to just how fallen people are — especially the impact of the fall on our ability to reason. There are interesting reasons why we lean that way. Perhaps the most germaine to this topic is because our experience with Bible teachers in the denominational world has led us to the conclusion that the Bible is either as easy to figure out as a math equation 0R those guys have the Spirit of God revealing stuff to them — which they can’t because they weren’t properly baptized.
Because we’ve refused to believe the latter, we believe the former, and that has given us our sense of identity in Christendom: We are the ones who get it right.
I think that leads us to be more argumentative (though not by a huge margin) than some of our other friends.
The C of C hermeneutic has done so much to limit church growth. When you have to run everything through Command, Example, and Necessary Inference, you’re going to have hamstrung leadership, narrow worship expression, and almost no room for innovation and creativity. Acappella-only worship is merely a symptom of the hermeneutical problem.
Even congregations that do not strictly hold to the traditional C of C hermeneutic, there are enough people in those congregations that maintain a residual (even if unconscious) allegiance to the effects of that hermeneutic that change cannot come effectively or efficiently. It is kind of like the residual effects of slavery - legally there is no slavery, but generational effects remain.
The Christian Church hermenutic, as I understand it, lacks the rigidity and narrowness found in the C of C branch of the RM. Not only is it less narrow, it has fewer residual detriments when a church moves beyond it.
Is it possible that we worship our “worship service”? Could it be our golden calf?
DU
In responde to Riddle (#37)…
You’re right, and I agree in thinking that nothing is as important as God directing and changing the church. His tool to do that, both historically and currently, is through the leadership that I think we can all agree HE appoints in each local church. Through these faithful individuals, He directs, leads, and changes churches for the benfit of His glory, for the salvation of the lost, and for the betterment of the church in question.
The things I listed in my post in no way override or replace God’s leadership, but are what I wholeheartedly believe to be the things which He has led my leasdership to set as important within the context of our weekend services.
If we’re not supposed to place a priority on leadership, then why would Paul exmaple that so much for us in his writing to the church? He wasn’t God, but he was God’s appointed leader - leading in the way that he humbly and faithfully felt God would have him lead. It’s now our turn (at least those who are in leadership of local churches) to do the same.
In response to DU (#41)…
Yes, there are many churches that have begun to worship their weekend services, and it’s been happening for years. It happens in the modern churches who worship their modernity. It happens in postmodern churches who place way too much priority on being postmodern. It happens in conservative churches who place so much value on what they don’t do that they end up actually doing very little. Now, does every church do this? No. Do some churches who would claim to fit into one of the categories I mentioned do this? Absolutely.
Our church places a high value on it’s weekend service, because it is our primary tool for outreach. Right or wrong, it’s a model that has worked for us in the last 12 years. Our leadership, doing what they believed God would have them do, set a vision for a weekend service that would reach out to the needs of the lost and broken of our community without neglecting the believer - and it’s worked so far. Are weekend services our primary ministry? Yes. Does that limit us in some ways? Of course… but, it has given us the chance to grow from a church of 80 with little purpose to a much larger church who is impacting our community.
Sam said, “You’re right, and I agree in thinking that nothing is as important as God directing and changing the church.”
I’m glad we agree.
Sam said, “His tool to do that, both historically and currently, is through the leadership that I think we can all agree HE appoints in each local church.”
A few thoughts on this. I’m glad you brought up history, because I agree it’s important. I think I have a few points of disagreement, but I’m not sure. First. God certainly has leaders do and say things in the history of the church. But let’s be clear that it is God who changes the hearts of people and that is what brings change in the church. People aren’t “tools”. People are either living out faithfulness to God or they are not. Regardless it is God who is working.
Second, I’m of the opinion that not every person in leadership is appointed by “God”. I’m sorry but I just can’t go there. I’m not in the business of deciding who is appointed and who isn’t. But my experience and my understanding of scripture leads me to believe that it’s not a universal understood.
Third. Your first line from your first post was a quote from John Maxwell. “Everything rises and falls on leadership.” Your last post refers to Paul as a leader. I would suggest that Paul and John Maxwell have very little in common in their understandings of leadership. Historically I’d suggest that “leadership” in 21st Century America is radically different than what Paul is referring to in the 1st Century. John Maxwell writing within a Capitalistic culture who worships “leadership” more than any other culture in the history of the world, or any other country on the earth at this time is meaning something very different when he says, “everything rises and falls on leadership”. Just a thought.
Sam said, “Through these faithful individuals, He directs, leads, and changes churches for the benfit of His glory, for the salvation of the lost, and for the betterment of the church in question.”
A couple more thoughts. I like what you are saying about God’s glory being the point. I think you are right theologically. But let’s be honest. That’s not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about control and power and being right. Instrumental or non-Instrumental… it has very little to do with God’s glory and more to do with people and their desires. Lord help us all if the type of music we listen to is the real issue here. Let’s just be honest about it.
Sam said, “The things I listed in my post in no way override or replace God’s leadership, but are what I wholeheartedly believe to be the things which He has led my leasdership to set as important within the context of our weekend services.”
Let me be clear. I think this is great. But trust that God can do the same with others in their own context. This will aleave each of us here from trying to convince each other we are right in our position.
I have to agree with Chris. If you’re going to buy into the whole COC hermeneutic, you have to believe in the whole idea that there was a pure first century church to begin with. You have to buy into the whole falling away and restoration idea.
The CENI hermeneutic also elevates scripture to the Trinity while kicking out the Holy Spirit. This impoverished view of the Trinity is big part of our in ability to connect with both God and the world.
Finally, people are just too smart to accept our simplistic and narrow worldview. They know that the world is just not as simple as we make it out to be. They know that there is some mystery to Christianity and we have squeezed most of that out of our theology. Most people have at least some college an many have graduate and post graduate degrees. That wasn’t true in the past. You can’t expect them to check their brains at the door.
This is pretty raw and rambling but that’s some of my impresions.
I found it interesting that last year at the Pepperdine Bible Lectures, Bob Stone, from Southeast Christian Church noted that the biggest difference he noted between Christian Churches and Churches of Christ is that growing Christian Churches generally have empowered, staff driven churches where most Churches of Christ have elder driven churches.
Wade: I’ve spent the past 30 years of my life preaching in churches of Christ and am looking at resigning in the near future to pursue fulltime work in another field. The church I presently serve is a wonderful church and I’m quite content in my role here (13th year), but I’d planned for years to leave ministry when my daughter graduated from college (she’s a senior this fall) and work in the secular field.
Our church has Sunday night assemblies only once a month and we use a praise band for what we call “Celebration!” It’s been a wonderful experience (I play guitar, banjo for those old southern gospel tunes, occasional keyboard, and sing) and I hope to eventually find a church that will allow this 54-year-old soon-to-be-former church of Christ preacher to be a part of a praise and worship ministry. I just think churches of Christ in general are dying because our focus is US and our strategy is keep the weakest, loudest member quiet and somewhat happy, and have extremely weak leadership on the elder level. The congregation in our fellowship that truly steps out in faith is rare … if it exists at all. Thanks for the forum … I look forward to your response.
Steve, Dave Stone was at Pepperdine. See comment 11.
DU
Wade - it’s one of those things that you can’t explain until you remove the barriers. Anytime something that isn’t an issue is an issue it limits the mission terribly.
@ Shannon Oaks in Sulphur Springs, We’ve grown from 350 - lost about 200 - and are now over 750 in 2 years in a town of 14,000 - great quality instrumental music as an addition to praise was a major factor in the change and rapid growth process. There’s no comparison to where we were two years ago and I was raised in a great missional accapella culture my whole life.
There are other issues at every stage - but once you cross that barrier of the identifying marks of cofc’s - you not only move past the issues, but you eventually move past an entire personality type and hermeneutical lens.
I didn’t mean to post that last comment after re-reading your post
I just hope God keeps working through us all - it’s embarrassing to acknowledge all the things we don’t really have a clue about.
Who stinkin’ knows why God moves here and not there… we’re really fools to pretend to have an answer…
I’m embarrassed that I’ve thought the things I’ve thought over my short years in ministry and I’m embarrassed I posted the last comment - as if I have a clue why we’re growing or anyone else is growing. God makes things grow period… all we do is plant and work on our own soil!
God makes it grow - he makes everything grow… Who can understand it, much less explain it.
#41 Gets it right. You are worshipping worship.
I have seen 49 posts up til now, and have seen the ICC mentioned, the Restoration movement mentioned, CENI mentioned, etc… ad nauseum.
Jesus told Peter, “upon this rock I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH.” I find nothing in the writings of Paul about the numerical growth of a church, or that they aren’t appealing enough. Every time Jesus talks about believers, he uses the words “few”, “not many”, etc… Every time he talks about the lost, he used words like “many”.
As far as #45 is concerned, I find it interesting that the Biblical examples we have fly in the face of the Pepperdine lecturer’s worldly advice. For every example you can find of a staff growing a church, I could find two examples of a hireling staff killing one.
If everyone is so enamored of the Christian Church, their paid staff, and their “wonderful” instrumental services, why not just go there and stop trying to change the church of Christ? I know this is hard to understand for some people, but a lot of us are spiritually healthy and producing good fruit in a traditional church of Christ. We don’t need praise teams, instruments, banners, fuzzy teaching, and small groups to jumpstart our spiritual lives, because we have the DISCIPLINE to study the Word, and the calling to spread the Word. I always get the impression that those who want to use the worship service as a way to spread the gospel (strange, considering the audience) are looking for an easy way out. Other than the day of Pentecost, I see the gospel being spread person to person, and family to family.
Truly spreading the gospel takes sacrifice, time, and pain. Adding a guitar and a drumset to make you think you’re spreading the word is like giving a dog a pencil and expecting him to write a novel. Unfortunately the vast majority of today’s wishy-washy believers actually think that the dog is going to write War and Peace. Please throw away your purpose-driven infected programs, and return to the gospel message. The gospel changes men’s hearts, not your foolish attempts to wrap it up in something more appealing. If this purpose-driven mindset had been prevalent in the first century, the churches would have told Paul he needed to sit down and shut up:
He couldn’t see well
He apparently wasn’t much to look at
He apparently wasn’t the best speaker
He was frequently offensive
He didn’t take a paycheck
He got in arguments over scripture and theology
He pointed out the failings of others when they contradicted the gospel message
Poor Paul, what a misguided preacher…thank goodness those Apostles who built the church from scratch aren’t here to ruin our newfound way of growing the church beyond belief…
Shouldn’t our churches be empowering EVERYONE for ministry? Not just staff, or elders…every Christian has the same calling, regardless of if they get paid for it, or have been ordained. Discipleship is unfortunately missing from most churches, replaced with cool programs and impressive speakers. Maybe that’s why church memberships have been declining: we’re not calling every single person to discipleship.
Kerry,
Please help me understand how words like “few” and “small” apply to the size that a church should be…
He was making a contrast between the nnumber of believers and the vast amount of the world yet to be reached.
To say that Christ wants has church to be small is to completely ignore Christ’s command to the disciples to go into all the world and make disciples of all men…
I’m not trying to argue, here, Kerry… I truly am confused at your post.
With the publication of #50, I guess we can shut down the dialogue and consider ourselves corrected! We’ve heard the definitive, “spiritually healthy” response!
In response to Riddle (#43)
I just wanted to say that I read your well-writtn post. You’ve made me think, and I appreciate that. I’ve got more to say, but want to think it over before I post. I look forward to a dialogue!
Sam,
You first: Please tell me why everyone and their dog on this site is obsessed with cheap tricks and gimmicks to pack the pews.
I didn’t say Christ wants his church to be small, but I was responding to the obvious emphasis on this site that a church has to be large to be healthy. If you can show me the verse that says only large congregations are healthy, I’ll agree immediately.
I would say you are confused at my post because you are on one side of this issue, and I am on the other. Believe it or not, there are plenty of us who see nothing wrong with the “traditional” church of Christ, and can spread the gospel in that model. It seems to those of us on this side that you and others won’t be happy until every single church of Christ has adopted the purpose-driven model for growth, and run off dedicated people like me.
Greg,
Could I not say the same thing about the other 49 posts before mine? The first post that you don’t agree with, and you resort to mocking me. In the view of almost everyone on this site, if a person can be a part of a traditional church of Christ and not want to turn it upside down, there must be something wrong with them!
I am sick and tired of people running down congregations like mine, just because we aren’t “modern” or “postmodern” or “experiential” enough.
As a person who spent the first 20 years of my life in the ICC, and the last 18 years in the COC, I have an observation to throw into the mix. This will sound very simplistic, but it is relevant, none the less. Growing up in the Christian Church, I found that most people didn’t know anything about the ICC. When I said that I attended Cedar Ridge Christian Church, people would say, “But what denomination are you?” to which I respond, “I don’t know, just Christian.”
Now, when I tell people I belong to a COC, they always have preconceived ideas about what a COC believes. Most of the time, the things they assume are not consistent with my experiences in the COC. I spend my time explaining that the church I am part of is not what they think.
It may be worth noting that the most conservative congregation I have ever been a part of was in the ICC, and the most legalistic individuals I know happen to be members of the ICC. That being said, I think the COC has the reputation of being arrogant & exclusive even though I have not experienced that personally. The ICC has no reputation to over come. People have no expectations or biases when they walk through the doors of an ICC, so the congregation just is what it is. Some are healthy, some are dying, but they boom or bust based soley on the effectiveness of the individual congregation.
In the COC, we also have congregations that are healthy and some that are dying. The difference may boil down to the fact that we have a reputation that preceeds us, and it is not always flattering. It may not be fair or even accurate, but the negativity associated with our brotherhood may be the single biggest factor separating our movement from that of the ICC. I am confident that within a generation or two, many of our negatives will be long forgotten, and our reputation will be defined by actions and attitudes of the current COC. All movements have their imperfections, but frankly, I am honored to part of a fellowship that is so determined to reflect Christ to the world.
Fascinating conversation, guys. I come at this with a little different perspective. I have moved on, so to speak, from the CofC, but for reasons that have nothing to do with the quality of its song services. Now, as an Orthodox Christian, my worship is also largely accapella, though this did not influence my decision either.
The thing that interests me about this conversation is how thoroughly the CofC has assimilated itself into mainstream Evangelical Protestantism; how thoroughly the CofC has made the transition from sect to denomination as outlined by Richard Hughes in his works. For the entire context of this discussion is framed by the belief that worship is all about evangelism-what we can do in our worship assemblies to attract visitors, the unchurched, etc. There was a time in our history when some at least, would have maintained that the worship was not about evangelism, but about gathering around the Table. I’m not hearing any of that in this discussion.
I’m not throwing any stones here, as I don’t really have a horse in this race. I suppose I’m just noting that there are some Christians out here that don’t start with the same presuppositions about worship found in the CofC, the ICC and Evangelical Protestantism in general.
I would tell you that worship is all about being at the table, but making sure we gather in a a way that invites and leaves room for others at that table.
There’s plenty of food.
Sam,
I look forward to your thoughts.
John, It’s clear to me that far from being an exclusive thing, the table is an invitation. It’s not a barrier. I didn’t always feel this way growing up in a COC. But I think we need to re-think our exclusivist attitudes about the table. A couple of months ago I led a devotional at our church about this very issue. You can read it here.
http://manersthoughts.blogspot.com/2005/12/feasting-with-god.html
Sam and Joel-true enough, I suppose, but that is not the point I was making. Rather, the CoC now fits comfortably within the larger Protestant Evangelical framework. Whether communion is inviting or not, whether it is exclusive or not, whether it creates barriers or not are all questions that play out within the Evangelical context. The only significance to this point is that for much of our history, the CoC fancied that it transcended such classifications (the “restorationist” congregations, to use Wade’s terminology, may imagine that they still do). I just find it interesting to note this reality.
In the Reformation, the Protestants threw out the altar and replaced it with a pulpit. The questions raised here, the observations and conclusions in this thread are all “pulpit” questions; whether it be the music, the message, or the communion. When the pulpit replaced the altar, it also changed in very radical ways the understanding of the Communion, as well. So I guess what I am saying is that when you step away from this Protestant Evangelical context, it does more than change the answers. It also changes the questions.
Even though I have moved on to another place in my faith, I do love the CoC and remain a respectful student of its history. I would never be where I am now without it.
We should serve a gospel of love. That’s what Jesus taught. Gentiles and Jews, slaves, masters, everyone. If we’re not willing to hear what others are saying, then how will they hear what we say?
I obviously am joining this party late (everyone seems to have gone home!). A couple of thoughts, if I may:
1) Yes, protestants replaced the alter with a pulpit. However, it was Catholics who replaced the table with an alter. Though we remember Jesus’ death in communion, we are to celebrate the resurrected Lord (the sacrifice at the alter are to be enjoyed at the table–thanks for pointing this out, John Mark Hicks!). And Jesus told us to throw a banquet and invite everyone: the blind, the lame, the poor, etc. We need to return to the table view.
2) Talk about numbers is rooted in the Church Growth Movement (which found it’s peak with Purpose-Driven Church). It is a Modern approach. The postmodern approach is Missional, which is not about pragmatics, but about the kingdom and mission of God. That is a healthier approach (though Church Growth taught us a great deal). Of course, I am a critical realist, not a modernist nor a postmodernist (our epistemology makes more difference than you think). But I can worship with all of you anyway. 
3) Yes, much of the Christian Church growth in the past 20 years has been due to intentional church planting using groups like Stadia. Thankfully, we have caught the vision (see http://www.missionalive.org and http://www.kairoschurchplanting.org for my friends in church planting).
Final thought: if we are going to be very serious about the “silence of Scripture” as completely prohibitive, we have no choice but to become Amish. (Oh, no! No more blogs!)
God bless you all in your walk with Christ. He is the only way.
I ended up here at this web page by accident. I was surfing for something else. But, with my roots in the CofC, your page caught my interest. I attend HighPoint Fellowship
(www.hpf.org) in the Austin Texas area. We started as a church of Christ - of sorts - but have grown (rapidly) to be more of a non-denom fellowship - without an identifiable
familiar church name association. Since we are still listed in some places under the heading “Church of Christ”, we still get some interesting inquiries from CofC-ers as to what
exactly we are. The simple answer “we’re just a church FOR Christ” drives them crazy.
HighPoint started in 1998 with just a few CofC families and today is a fellowship of over 500 members and weekend attendance in the 600 to 750 range. (We just started our 4th
worship assembly this past weekend.) We are a “purpose-driven” fellowship that has shepherds and their wives as spiritual leaders and models for life. Our administration is
conducted by our SaLT Team (Servant Leadership Team) - made up of men and women who have the gift of leadership in ministry. Our 30-plus ministries are guided by these leaders.
Our Small Groups (called “Growth Groups” here) are thriving and is a major emphasis at HighPoint. The Growth Group that meets in my home is about 8 to 10 adults who have to come
to us from CofC, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Catholic, Mormon, and Jehovah’s Witness. ( no kidding…) We assemble weekly in the name of Jesus Christ for a meal, Bible Study and
fellowship. It’s all I can do to get them out of my house by 10 p.m. It is wonderful!
I said all that to say this… our church has experienced this remarkable growth because of the relationships we create with our “guests.” We relate to them through our own
“hurts, habits, and hang-ups”. We openly share with newcomers that “…we’re just as messed up as you are. Welcome home.” We are a recovery church - a home of help, hope and
healing. They feel safe. We relate to them through prayer, child-care, good works, sacrificial giving and so on. Our programs, our people, our dress, our music - it is all
something that is relatable to our guests. Basically, we are growing because of the relationships we continually create. They can relate to us!
When we can all make our reason for “doing church” relatable to the community… we will experience growth! Folks are dying out there. Numerical growth in church is frequently
talked about negatively. That’s unfortunate… the numerical growth in our communities is leaving churches behind. Always seek that next soul. I like the quote; “It’s not about
me”…
I’ve rambled… sorry.
With His love,
Terry Oliver
Information Technology Ministry
HighPoint Fellowship
Cedar Park, Texas
Hello Wade,
I found your comments by accident but I was enthralled by the responses. I enjoy wonderful worship. The ACU Lectures with Zoe Group is my ultimate worship experience. However, I am pleased to work or worship in any congregation which places a great emphasis on the pre-Christians in the community. In regard to why Christian churches grow faster than non-instrumental churches of Christ, I think it is all about who we evangelize.
Someone tell me if I am wrong please. Historically in the churches of Christ, we have concentrated on evangelizing the denominational world (our friends, family, co-workers etc). Christian churches and other fast growing denominations seem to be converting the pre-Christians (unchurched) in their communities.
Churches grow when the newly converted (the evangelized) reach out to their circle of friends. As for us Christians, we usually hang out with other Christians. Our closest friends already have a relationship with Christ. Therefore, our typical circle of friends do not need saved from anything. However, an unchurched person who becomes a Christian still has a large circle of friends just like himself (people searching for answers). On occasion, one of them may be converted and they will have a circle of unchurched friends who can hear the good news about Christ. Those unchurched who convert must be mentored and taught that they too can teach.
In the churches of Christ, in our attempt to convert the denominational world, what happens? The same situation arises; the evangelized will have a circle of friends. However, that circle of friends will most likely be members of that person’s former church. They will not be open to evangelization. They won’t feel a need to be saved. In other words, that circle of friends will not have a felt need to know Christ. That limits how far that new convert can go to evangelize.
We need to focus on the unchurched, but many of our congregations focus on the already churched who just happen to move into our neighborhoods. This happens because the converted unchurched may think different than us theologically. They may act different than us. They may bring enthusiasm into the church. They may knock us out of our comfort zones.
We need to establish relationships with people we sometimes ignore. We need to be friendlier. And we need to get into our communities and be the Christians God wants us to be. We won’t start growing, instruments or not, unless we engage people and show them the face of Jesus through our imitation of the savior.
Brian Humek
Wade,
Everything rises and falls with leadership. I know that’s vague, but it’s true. I would guess (and it’s only a guess) that the people in leadership positions in the Christian Churches are somehow more free/mobilized/empowered/trusted to lead than their leadership counterparts in the Churches of Christ.