Ed,
You are right on as usual. However, I must remark that while we must understand the concept of "less permanency," that condition or development is not God's intention. Consider Christ's letters to the seven churches in Revelation. His intent was clear that he wanted them to repent rather than close the doors. I think many denominational leaders have clearly decided it is easier and acceptable to give up on the small plateaued/declining existing church than to try revival, turnaround, comeback, or what ever you want to call it. (I know you get this because one of my favorite books of yours is "Comeback Churches") The comeback church is as equally valid a model of church "re-planting" as is planting a new church. Churches will be permanent if people become healthy growing disciples of Jesus and keep their focus on making disciples and putting Jesus first.

nailed it again, Ed..."lots of churches died 30 years ago, but no one turned out the lights..."

Love it!!! One of the things I find that my church leaders are often frustrated with is when people leave the church. Now if there are mass exoduses due to unresolved problems, then that's a different issue. But when you talk about "Less Permanence," I immediately think of "less permanence" in membership. Membership turnover is mostly seen as a bad thing, but I don't really see it that way anymore. Wouldn't it be awesome if people were consistently leaving their churches in order to become missionaries and plant other churches? And if we take it one step further, wouldn't it be even better if churches were less worried about their own numbers and started intentionally and consistently sending their members out to become missionaries and start new churches. Crazy I know!

Playing off Tom's comment on the churches of Revelation it has struck me that Jesus wasn't overcome with fright at the potential loss of the seven churches. It was a take it or leave it approach, "repent or be removed". In my view Jesus' lack of fear was rooted in He will always have churches doing the work. When one dies others can rise up.

Ron, your comment is absolutely correct that where one church dies another begins to grow, and sometimes it is from the remnants of the former church. That being said, my point is that many leaders today seem to approach the decline of a church in a casual manner. I think we can agree that there is nothing casual about Jesus' challenge to the churches in Revelation and to those like them today. As Jesus wept over Jerusalem, I believe Jesus weeps over each church that dies. Do we?...or do we have the attitude, "To bad, let's just go start another one." You are correct that we should have no fear about the death of a church...maybe sorrow. Or perhaps a greater desire to plant churches with disciple-making DNA rather than conversion DNA.
With respect,
Tom Cocklereece

Some useful discusion starters, as always.

I'm slightly surprised that you don't mention the centrality of corporate prayer (though perhaps that is implicit in the comment on making authentic disciples).

I would also question whether the current trend towards multi-site represents as significant a development as you suggest.

If you don't realize the trends of #4, you are in a cave.

If you don't realize the treads of #5, you are in a well deep inside that same cave.

Thanks, Ed.

Although #4 is important in planting churches (don't wait for a building, just get started wherever you can), in this country, you usually need a place to tell people where to go to.

And while I agree with #6 in principle, that there is a natural life cycle of each church (usually about 35 years), the solution is not euthanasia, but rather a periodic time of refreshing of the vision.

But points 1, 2 and 3 are spot on. A consultant for our church plant suggested we not plan on staring another congregation until our 5th year of operation - he's in a slow-growing denomination that's not keeping up with its constituency.

We are going through great changes. We must realize these changes and embrace them. I am fascinated by the cultural shifts that are happening. God is shaping us to accomplish something.

#'s 4 and 5 are the greatest representation of the change in culture. # 3 is the biggest hurdle.

About the Churches that have died 30 years ago: there are still believers who have to have their needs met in those dead churches. An important question is: how do we meet those needs and still press forward in this new world?

James makes a good point that there are genuine Christians in declining churches who have various needs. Some of them have an old fashioned loyalty to their church family while some leaders would casually tell them to go somewhere else. They may desire to be in a vibrant church but they want their church to be vibrant. Consider the Kingdom resources the many plateaued and declining churches possess. What if all of those churches some are ready to "write off" stopped giving to Kingdom causes today? If we are serious about a Great Commission Resurgence, we will put as much effort into discipleship and revitalization of churches as we do in evangelism and church planting. The people in revitalized churches that I know believe it was worth the effort.

Tom, thanks. But, I don't agree with your last idea. If we are serious about the GCR we will engage our people in the missional effort. Part of my job is to bring my church into the new world. I pastor a rural, formally declining, small church. I can't coddle them and let them sit on their sweet bye and bye. Part of my ministry of meeting their needs is allowing them to take part in mission and ministry in this new world. Having said that, we can not put equal effort in revitalization of dying churches. Most of them want to stay dead. If my church wanted to stay dead I wouldn't be hear. My time on earth is to short. My church doesn't wan't to stay dead. You are right and hearing that I don't want to write off the faithful back in the camp, but I also don't want to use equal resources. Send the resources to the front.

Yep, Tom, we need both planting and revitalization.

Mike, I am with you. I want revitalization and have written books and many articles on the subject. But, I am not opposed to churches closing. Too many churches are more passionate about their existence than joining God on mission.

All, I don't always see the closing of a church as a great tragedy. It seems to me that churches have a life cycle. And, sometimes people move away and new people move in. Perhaps those new people speak a different language. The best thing in that case is for one church to close and another to start.

On the other hand, I love revitalized churches that get a new mission focus. We need both.

Ed

Ed, well said! I too want to direct resources to the front. Sometimes a new front will lead us to redirect some resources to maintain ground already taken. Great discussion.

How is it possible to have so much depth in such a short article? I have served in all of those arenas. As the youth/associate pastor was called to give the last message of a 117 year old church in central CA. who rather than die joined a vibrant, Missional, multi-site church which was less than 8 years old. I am currently starting a church in the mid-west and find myself struggling to not get ahead of ourselves. We so much want to be a church that plants churches, who Declare God’s Glory; however we are not yet a “planted” church. So, any advice?

Good words Ed. Keep it coming.

All the talk about fronts and rear echelons doesn't make much sense to me. Anyone who thinks that declining churches are not 'the front' is missing a rather important point- the gospel is needed there just as much as anywhere else. They are the front! I fail to see the need for the emphasis on new church starts when we can't even get people to evangelize in the church where they are members.

As for the transitionalism, in my experience, most of those leaving one church for another do so not for valid spiritual/scriptural reasons, but instead for finding the most entertaining, upbeat, cool new place to be. In other words, they are focused on their felt needs rather than the gospel.

As simul iustus et peccator, our felt needs are not often going to coincide with our real need (the gospel). The key is to have a gospel-focused, God-centered church rather than the current popular model of a felt-needs and man-centered church. No, the unregenerate won't want to stay there. But we don't need any more buildings full of people who have been inoculated against the gospel, and such a building is not a church, no matter what the marquis out front says.