This is very interesting information and I think is very true and I can say that I have personally seen some of this with my own eyes. However the question that I have is, how does the church adjust with out compromising the gospel?

Compromising the gospel shouldn't even be one of the possibilities. The gospel still has the power to cut through all of that and reach our culture. What the church needs is a revival of confidence in the power of the gospel to save whosoever will, whenever, wherever it is proclaimed.

Thanks for this Ed.

As a person who was raised secular and came to Christian faith at age 37 after years of atheism and recovery-based agnosticism, I have to admit that I'm still trying to learn what church is really supposed to be. Thinking that others who had been at this for a lifetime would be equipped to guide me, what I have found that finding a place in this faith from the outside is not unlike attending a carnival - barkers waving their hands and calling you over to their booth to the exclusion of the other vendors. And they are not afraid to denigrate their competition to make the sale.

In fact, while many Christians feel put upon by "the world", I have heard far more Christian-bashing among Christian leaders trying to either make changes or prevent them then I ever did as an Christian-bashing atheist and I think many of the people described in this data may be caught in that crossfire.

Ed --

Interesting stuff to say the least. How do you think this data relates to current theories/practices of "relational" church models? That is, this looks like women are wlaking away from churches toward something diametrically opposed to relational models.

What say you?

I have definitely seen the impact of these trends on my own church and in observing some cultural trends. For years now, the younger people have seen commitment to a particular church as optional, resulting in a flow of twenty somethings moving from church to church. This seems to be most prevalent amoung singles. A friend of mine, who has a ministry to twenty-somethings says this is partially because the church sometimes doesn't know what to do with this group. Even among the thirty and forty-something adults with families, many change churches like one would change a pair of jeans. I think the impact on the church is profound, and the church of the future may not look much like what we know now. The early church was resilient and adapted to cultural change, meeting in catacombs when it was necessary in the face of adversity. The lack of adversity that the contemporary church has faced in America may well prove to be its downfall. One thing we know for sure, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

It probably is very true to say: many believers attend the church which they consider the best of several poor choices in their towns. They aren't ready to start or to help start a new church, but if they heard that a new one which appears more promising has started near them, they're willing to go check it out. If that new church lives up to expectations/hopes for it, those believers will stay there--at least, until another one more promising comes along.

It just seems that we cannot reach the people we want to reach, nor keep the folks we have reached, for three reasons primarily: (1) normal migration/attrition in/from our cities (about which we can do little--except for buying all the businesses in town and paying salaries and benefits people can't walk away from!); (2) low quality of ministries (have the ministries--but have so many that we don't do any of them super-well, which doesn't turn people on); and, (3) unresolved issues within the body (turns people off; even the core group eventually leave to find a more peaceful congregation).

David Troublefield
Wichita Falls, TX

My own anecdotal evidence suggests that a higher percentage of women than men are dissatisfied with their current church, perhaps because women tend to be more relationally vested in their churches while men tend to experience church as a series of events. In some respects, we have catered to this rather than confronting it. We have called it "making the church 'missional'." It seems we'd rather go build schools in Belize than confront our secret addictions and the emotional abandonment of our wives and daughters and, yes, even our brothers. We have been rightly rejecting an unhealthy feminization of the church. Perhaps we should beware of an overreactive masculinization that suggests relational interdependency is for wusses.

Authentic Christian community is the God-ordained context in which the transforming power of the gospel is unleashed (Eph. 5:19; Jam. 5:16). If we want the church to become healthier, perhaps we should stop devaluing highly relational leaders (and the smaller churches they might produce). We've replaced so many of our "pastors" with CEO style leaders: Should we be surprised when our churches grow numerically large and relationally shallow? Should we be surprised that moral failure among men active in our churches is epidemic? Should we be surprised when suddenly it's the wives who want to drop out?

For what it's worth, I don't know that I would disagree with the assertion that I am "more likely to develop my religious beliefs on my own, rather than to accept an entire set of beliefs that a particular church teaches." I certainly would want to fellowship with a group that shares many commonalities of belief with myself (and certain essential, foundational beliefs), but I think it would be difficult to find a body that I am willing to take on all of their beliefs. And if I am at a place where all of the beliefs are not held in common, I may desire for a fellowship where more of them are, even if I love my current church dearly.

I feel this strife right now as I love my church, its leaders, and the people in it very much, but at the end of the day I would prefer for them to be more Reformed in their view of Scripture. Is that a bad thing?

I have been going door to door in my community recently talking with people. I am in a progressive neighborhood in the city of Milwaukee. The overwhelming thing that I am hearing is "I have my own beliefs and I don't need a church to practice those beliefs."

Like the article says it is that sort of buffet belief system. People just don't see the need to be part of a church community.

Solutions:
Please know that this is pure brainstorming.

I think the first key is relationships. People in churches actually have to talk with and even be friends with people who don't go to church for the purpose of being friends not getting them to come to church. If people can see why I am involved in church that can give them a why. The problem is i see so many church people that don't have circles of friends outside of their church.

I feel we have to change the paradigm of what our gatherings look like. Singing four songs and listening to a guy teach for 40 minutes apparently doesn't connect with the people around us. There has to be some other ways to engage people. People always want interaction. How many tweets could be sent during a sermon? There is room for some innovation here.

Off that point of rethinking our gatherings. For many churches their gathering is dictated by their physical space. I would love to see some innovative spaces that lend themselves to a different way to engage people.

If people are pursuing their spiritual life outside of a church community. We could ask them how they cultivate their spiritual life without a church then incorporate some of those practices into a gathering.

Just some initial thoughts.

We are seeing young people yearning for a church model not unlike the Southern Baptist Convention and the United Methodist of the 19th century. In those days, small churches were the norm, with picnic lunches, and other informal activities working to bond those relationships. In the 20th century, staff led churches with program based models changed those relationships. Now, families and singles build relationships with staff members and with church programs. As church staff members change, or programs no longer fit a families stage in life, they move to another church.

I believe the ultimate goal of the house church/simple church/relationship church models are to provide young people and families with the same kind of strong discipleship relationships that our 19th century ancestors longed for and built.

It is amazing to me that so many in the SBC are fighting the very foundation that helped make them strong.

I think a huge part of the "what should churches do next" picture is about relationships. Isn't that what ecclesia is? A relationship with Chris as one body? Learning about who he is?

"People often call this approach to religious belief 'buffet theology...'"

Sounds like what some conservatives do with the Law of Moses. :)

"71% say they are 'more likely to develop my religious beliefs on my own, rather than to accept an entire set of beliefs that a particular church teaches.'"

If confessionalism/doctrinal statements are to be used, I think they should:

A. Be Biblical [of course]
B. Not bind the conscience to something that is unbiblical/nonbiblical.

Here's one possible approach:

Have a "basic" and, in some sense, "binding" confession of faith to teach those seeking to join the church.

This could provide some structure and protection without making people feel overwhelmed [i.e. information overload].

Also, the church could affirm an extensive "doctrinal statement" that is not binding, but is affirmed as a "teaching tool" for teachers/parents/preachers to freely use in connection with the church.

This approach has these advantages I think:

1. The church is protected from heresy [Arianism, for example].

2. The church can learn doctrine in depth.

3. There is less likelihood of falling into the error of binding the conscience of believers to that which does not flow from the ultimate teacher [Matt. 23:8].

___________________________________

Hermeneutic.

I think pastors need to teach the hermeneutic of Jesus [John 5:39, Luke 24:27]. If this happens [and it is accepted and practiced], then I think the leaders and the flock can move along the same theological trajectory in the first place.

And I think this can help pastors to be "persuasive"--see the first Greek word in Hebrews 13:17--rather than dictatorial [1 Peter 5:4].

God Bless,

Benji

I think if there was one major thing a typical church needed to work on, then it would be this: develop an authentic, spirit lead, community.
In most churches there is too much anonymity, often a false veneer of piety over imperfect and broken people, and a 'we are on our own' feel to sermons so that God doesn't even seem real. People I know, long for real community. They are tired of a shallow 'keeping up appearances' faith and are longing for a faith that is transformative.

I'm struggling with the idea that 88% of American adults say "my religious faith is very important in my life."

Was there a follow-up question to parents? "so what does that look like in your life and how are you passing faith down to your children?" I ask because why do we have so many parents asking how "faith talks" work in the home and abdicate to the church the responsibility to be spiritual leaders.

The church is in a desparate position to recast partnership with the home and definitely not leveraging it's influence to engage the family. We have good programs and families participate to build faith in children, so why not the church and home start working together strategically to make a deeper/stronger connection?

What if every strategy of the church was positioned to go back into the home? Teaching a high view of scripture in both faith and practice in a synchronized effort. The Church equipping the home with a Deuteronomy 6 mindset.

Continuing my thought from above: good theology is validated by healthy, functional relationships and community. This is the virtual thesis of Jesus' teaching on the Kingdom of God. In our culture, women seem to be more sensitive to this than men. So what might seem like "buffet theology" statistically, might in reality be the intuition of women to the fact that so many churches do not seem to practice or even understand what they preach. People are looking for churches that proclaim and practice grace, not churches that merely preach the doctrines of grace.

"'...rather than to accept an entire set of beliefs that a particular church teaches.'"

While I don't think Ed has said this, I think we need to be careful not to assume that a rugged American individualism is *always* behind someone not accepting an "entire" set of beliefs.

For example, Sam Storms had this to say about the BF&M statement on Spirit Baptism:

"But this statement asserts that the Holy Spirit baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ. The problem is that there isn't a single, solitary biblical text which says that the Spirit baptizes anyone into anything."

Now, if Sam Storms wanted to join a SB church that maintained that one must adhere to the "entire" BF&M to be a member and he could not for conscience sake, then I think it would be wrong to say he was not joining because of an individualistic mindset.

Grace,

Benji

P.S. What if SB seminary graduates could not join SB BF&M churches that would require an entire acceptance of the "1963" BF&M--if those churches exist--because of its statement on Scripture? Are they just "Americans Doing it Their Way"?

so, we are forsaking the fellowship mentioned in Hebrews or does that not pertain to us anymore...just sayin'

Here are some random thoughts:

I think real men are becoming less interested in the church show.

I think that church leaders are such wusses that if someone even says that someone is a wuss, they are in jeopardy of being placed under church discipline for causing division. What a bunch of girls.

I think pastors need to get over themselves. Someone needs to tell them that there is only one time in the entire New Testament where a word is even translated pastor. And yet, we've made them the center character in the church. We've forgotten about elders and the other offices mentioned in Ephesians.

I think we all need to stop copying everybody and get our own revelation of what God wants to do in our own local fellowships.

I think we need to stop marketing to women, with the erroneous belief they'll drag along their husband and children. Get the guys and the rest will follow and stay.

Oh, and the pastors and leaders need to learn to tell the truth, because real men can see behind the bull.

There's a tip of the iceberg for ya.

Ed -

This survey validates much of our own research in our area of Phoenix. We are noticing a real hunger for spiritual stuff so we have started a new ministry that emphasizes seeking God. We don't meet in the church, but very trendy eatery that people in our area love to go and hang out.

Rather than doing a regular sermon, I have broken the sermon into four vignettes that are woven into our music. The music and mini-messages compliment one another.

The mini messages center around well known culture icons that we use to as access points to talk about the deep truth still found in this present age. (Think Acts 17) Many of U2's lyrics work fabulously with this form.

The event last about 50-55 minutes, then we have appetizers and a sampling of entrees ready for our guests to munch on as they get to know one another. Most people hang out for another 30-45 minutes.

We just had our first event and everyone was really pumped up when we left.

I see living in this post modern, post Christian culture as a real opportunity to destigmatize the perceptions so many people have of the "church".

Let's use it as an opportunity to redefine ourselves to those who have a deep spiritual hunger, but are suspicious or tired of the "traditional" church.

All the best.

Well I am a recovering pew sitter on the path the plant church. The stats are true and can be seen everywhere. The reality is that as the church (traditional or other) we continually fail to BE the church and just offer different flavors of how to DO church. I am thoroughly convinced that when we ARE the church rather than simply create an event for attenders the world will react. Many will embrace us while others will hate us. The reality is that everyone is looking for something more whether in the church or not.

As Erwin Mcmanus proposes in his book Soul Cravings people are looking for Intimacy, Destiny and meaning. I believe that only when we live as the Church (one) the world will turn to God (John 17). The problem is we do not live for the sake of one another, we are focused on me and mine so much that we miss the experiences talked about in acts where the church gathered together. It is interesting that that the writer of acts did not stop at "Gathered" he made sure to emphasize the "togetherness." Our current paradigms seem to miss this. We gather, but we are just a bunch of individuals in the same room with a few shared moments, but this shifts as soon as we leave the moment.

comments to my post are welcome. you can also email me at hraburn@gmail.com