Archive: Why the Church has Declined

The diagnosis is grim, but there’s hope for recovery

By Ken Kinghorn

A story is making the rounds in Moscow. It’s about two workmen with shovels, one of whom stops every 20 feet to dig a hole, his companion fills it up, and they repeat the process.

“Comrade,” shouts an observer. “What are you doing? You dig a hole, then the other fellow fills it. You accomplish nothing. We’re wasting money paying you!”

“You don’t understand,” one of the workers replies. “Usually we work with a third fellow, Mikhail, but he’s home drunk today. I dig the hole, Mikhail sticks in a tree and Dimitri here puts the dirt back in the hole. Just because Mikhail is drunk doesn’t mean that Dimitri and I have to stop working!”

Success in any venture requires properly focused objectives. Athletic teams know they cannot win games unless they move in the right direction, coordinate their efforts—and regularly score points. Without a proper objective firmly in our minds, our work will not lead to worthwhile results.

Christian work uniquely involves spiritual objectives. Christ mandated the church’s primary mission—winning persons to Christ and nurturing them in Christian discipleship (Matt. 28:19, 20). And the unique nature of this mission requires the church to rely on divine assistance. Jesus stated, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Decline does not have its roots in outer circumstances, such as unfavorable sociological or demographical trends. Decline in the church results from substituting human plans for divine direction and enabling. When Christian organizations neglect their God-given objectives and fail to rely on divine empowering, they eventually decline—first spiritually, then institutionally. However, the process of decline seldom happens instantly. It unfolds incrementally in the following stages.

1. A failure to seek God’s direction results in the silence of God. A Quaker woman once asked a young man, “Hast thou heard God speak lately?” “No,” replied the young man, “I have not.” The woman commented, “Thee must have forgotten to be still and listen.” When we do not ask for God’s direction, we do not receive it. And if persons or organizations persistently fail to seek divine guidance, they miss the Lord’s way (I Sam. 16:14; 28:6; Ps. 81:11,12; Isa. 59:2; Ezek. 39:21-24; Hos. 10:13).

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, theological liberalism sought to develop new wineskins for communicating Christianity to secular culture. Liberal theologians wanted to mediate “abiding values through changing categories.”[1] This quest was legitimate, because, in the period after the Civil War, fresh statements of the Gospel were needed. However, in its extensive reconstruction of Christian doctrine, theological liberalism embraced many of the secular views of the very culture it wanted to address.

Near the end of his career, Henry Van Dusen, himself a champion of liberal theology, admitted that the fundamental flaw of liberalism was an uncritical deference to modern culture:

In seeking to save religious belief from annihilation by the accepted thoughtforms of the secular world, [liberalism] has become a pallid reflection of the secular philosophy.[2]

In his study of liberal theology, Kenneth Cauthen came to a similar conclusion:

In its enthusiasm for modern modes of thought, liberalism lost sight of much that was of permanent validity in the historic tradition. Liberal thinking was too greatly influenced by a cultural faith centering around an exaggerated confidence in the goodness of [humankind] and in the redemptive nature of history.[3]

Liberalism’s anthropological starting point did not take the Biblical revelation seriously enough. Any gains of theological liberalism were offset by its failure to recognize the limitations of human nature and the need for divine intervention in the world.[4]

Theological liberalism shifted the basis of theological inquiry from divine revelation to human reason and experience.[5] And when natural intellect replaced Biblical revelation, the church began to stray from its mission as set forth in Scripture. Human nature being what it is, all too easily and quickly we get into the habit of trusting our own reasoning powers.

In Christ’s day, many religious leaders boasted of their faithfulness to Yahweh. Yet, in practice, they placed their own traditions ahead of God’s commandments (Matt. 15:3). Jesus denounced them as blind leaders of the blind (Matt. 23:29-38). Characteristically, these sightless guides did not recognize their own spiritual inadequacy. Substituting human ideas for divine revelation is always a telltale sign of spiritual poverty.

2. The silence of God results in spiritual confusion. The failure to receive divine guidance leads to a loss of direction. Without a sure word from the Lord we drift from our course and dissipate our energies in a variety of zealous activities. Churches do not decline so much because of inactivity, but because they fail to work toward the right things.

Repeatedly, Israel fell into confusion and deception because the leaders neglected to seek guidance from God. The writer of Joshua observes:

The men of Israel … did not inquire of the Lord (Josh. 9:14).

Israel’s leaders became muddled because they trusted in their own wisdom. Jesus warned that if the light within becomes darkness, the darkness is great-and spiritual confusion surrounds us (Matt. 6:23).

Several of the old line denominations boast of theological pluralism; and pluralism, carried to an extreme, minimizes all claims to absolute authority. Jerry Walls points to the confused state which comes from rejecting authority:

Ironically … when authority breaks down, claims to authority increase rather than decrease. So there is today no shortage of theological pronouncements coming from every quarter. The contemporary scene can be aptly described as a cacophony of voices vying for attention and allegiance.[6]

Invariably, when individuals or groups cease hearing from the Lord, substitute voices and influences move into the vacuum, shaping objectives, priorities and actions. H. G. Wells once lamented, “For many, the voice of the neighbor sounds louder than the voice of God.”

When persons or institutions do not accept the unique authority of Scripture they enter into doctrinal indifference or they begin the zealous advocacy of personal ideologies. Religious gatherings illustrate this inner division, when conference participants devote more time to political maneuvering than to celebration, worship and prayer. In such a context we easily confuse human aims with divine mission, and we seek to determine our direction by majority vote.

A substantial amount of contemporary religion functions apart from Biblical revelation and seeks to work out human problems in secular ways.[7] This compromised Christianity builds on human reason, allies itself with secular methods, noticeably neglects the power of the Holy Spirit, and denies the reality of a future divine judgment.

Human efforts will not change the world; only Christ can. Albert Outler offers a healthy reminder of the Wesleyan heritage:

Wesley was as vitally concerned as ever the humanists were about the quality and dignity of human life—only he knew, as they did not, that life’s highest quality and dignity cannot be gained, but must be given, that life’s enduring meanings and values are all dividends of grace.[8]

All theological and institutional schemes which place more faith in human systems than in God’s power will certainly fail. Such nonbiblical religion lacks spiritual power, and it cannot bring lost persons to faith in Christ.

Spiritual confusion always blurs the distinction between truth and error. And, historically, error creeps in as a consequence of an inner moral failure. In a classic study of theological shifts within an oldline denomination, Robert E. Chiles observed:

The compromises of orthodoxy are serious … because they tend to betray the prior depletion of viable redemptive reality.[9]

Theologies which contradict Scripture usually have their source in an unwillingness to accept divine authority and providence. These moral failures lead to elevating human opinions and objectives above plain Biblical teaching. And such religious mayhem inexorably leads to ever more serious deviations from Scripture, common sense, and historic orthodoxy.

3. Spiritual confusion leads to institutional decline. Spiritual health, by definition, includes growth; and fruit-bearing constitutes the unmistakable norm of vital Christianity (Matt.13:23; John 15:5, 8, 16; cf. Acts 2:47). Jesus stated that when His word falls on unreceptive hearts it cannot grow or multiply (Matt. 13:18). But when God’s Word enters receptive hearts, it will grow and reproduce abundantly (Matt. I 3:23).

Lacking a clear sense of God’s guidance, confused office holders give their energies mostly to maintaining organizational structures, enforcing “correct procedures” and defending current trends. William Willimon and Robert Wilson observe:

A declining organization falls into the hands of managers. In fact, it is more comfortable with managers than leaders, with people who write and interpret rules, persons who protect the institutional status quo … and defend conventional values against maverick critics or reformers.[10]

Of course, there are exceptions to every generalization; the church has produced some exceptionally fine leaders. However, some church structures are bloated with custodians who “manage decline,” “administer maintenance plans” and continue to produce and defend ineffective programs. These managers tinker with organizational and institutional matters, while ignoring the fundamental mission of the church.

Peter Drucker, the dean of American Management Consultants, remarked:

There are few things less pleasing to the Lord, and less productive, than an engineering department that rapidly turns out beautiful blueprints for the wrong product.[11]

To put the matter another way, we sometimes become more concerned about “doing things right” than in “doing the right things.”

All the while, spiritually starved persons look to the church to satisfy their spiritual hunger. Not finding spiritual bread, they cease visiting worship services, and they never join the church. At the same time, creative and vital church members complain that the boards and agencies of the church have abandoned Biblical mandates for fads and political agendas. Disappointed and angered, these potentially productive members of the church quietly leave. And the church declines.

Confused people concentrate on meeting their own needs, not the needs of others. George Hunter reminds us of two Detroit companies in the 1920s—the Ace Buggy Whip Company and the Ford Transportation Company:

Each company, at the time, manufactured buggy whips, but the two companies saw their main business differently. Ace saw their business as selling buggy whips; Ford saw their business as providing personal transportation for people …. Ace tried harder and harder, in vain, to sell buggy whips to people, who now wanted cars, while Ford was leading the automobile revolution in the middle-class market.[12]

One company looked for the public to meet its needs; the other company sought to meet the needs of the public. One company was drowning in confusion; the other company had a mission. Those churches which fail to meet the needs of people will and should decline.

The setting aside of Scriptural guidelines eventually leads to condoning ideas and practices clearly forbidden in the Bible. Some even label those who speak against Scripturally forbidden practices as narrow-minded, lacking compassion or failing to love others. In Galatians, Paul specified a number of unacceptable attitudes and actions. He declared, “I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” (see Gal. 5:16-21). I recently heard a professor of theology comment on that passage of Scripture: “Paul’s outdated morality smacks of legalism. Paul’s views must be replaced with the doctrine that God unconditionally accepts all people, regardless of religion or lifestyle.”

The Bible constitutes our ultimate guideline for knowing God’s will and God expects our obedience. The truth of Samuel’s declaration echoes into our own day:

Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the voice of the Lord? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams. For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry (I Sam.15:22, 23).

No religious ministry will enjoy the Lord’s favor unless the ministry conforms to God’s Word and relies on God’s power. Without God’s direction and empowering we cannot bear fruit. And, typically, those who do not bear fruit spend much energy criticizing the methods of those who do.

4. Spiritual decline eventually leads to a death wish. Not uncommonly, some people prefer to see their organization die rather than to lose control over it. Often the death wish festers unconsciously, but examples of a death wish appear regularly in the churches.

Richard G. Hutcheson Jr. tells the story of King College, a small church-related college in Tennessee. By the mid-1970s this school had lost most of its students. Mounting debt had brought the college to the point of bankruptcy. Denominational officials were powerless to save the school, and they agreed to merge the venerable institution with a state-supported university.

In the meantime, a group of concerned clergypersons and laypersons raised enough money to save the school. They established a budget, recruited new students and rescued the college from certain extinction. The faculty made plans for a new semester. Together, the rescue committee and the faculty committed themselves to return King College to its original mission, as outlined in the school’s charter. Morale on the campus skyrocketed, and the campus came alive with new hope.[13] Enrollment began to rise. The new leaders promised faithfully to continue the school as a denominational college. They proposed to reorganize the Board of Trustees and to replace the outgoing president with an experienced administrator from Wheaton College.

But, surprisingly, fierce opposition surfaced. Says Hutcheson:

The denomination power establishment now rose up in arms. The synod, which had made no concerted effort to rescue the college financially in the preceding years, now mounted a major effort to stop the “takeover.” Lawyers were retained for court action. All funds currently in the synod’s hands, which had been given by churches and designated for King [College], were placed in a special account to pay legal fees. … One of the denomination’s leaders in the field of higher education wrote an editorial … maintaining that it would be preferable to close the college rather than let this new group … assume control.[14]

Why this objection to the denomination’s own members saving the college and vowing to keep it within the denomination? Why this death wish? The reason is simple: The entrenched leaders, who showed neither the will nor the ability to save the college, preferred to preside over the death of King College rather than to relinquish their control.

These, then, are the steps that lead to decline: First, a failure to seek God’s direction results in the silence of God. Second, the silence of God results in spiritual confusion. Third, spiritual confusion leads to institutional decline. And, fourth, spiritual decline eventually leads to a death wish. These steps follow each other inexorably. A fundamental law of God is that we reap exactly what we have sown. We are free to make our choices, but we are not free to escape the consequences of those choices.

Dean M. Kelly, a staff member of the National Council of Churches, makes the following statement about declining institutions:

Having once succumbed to debility, a church is unlikely to recover, not because measures leading to recovery could not be prescribed and instituted … but because the persons who now occupy positions [of control] will not find them congenial and will not want to institute them. They prefer a church which is not too strenuous or demanding—a church, in fact, which is dying.[15]

From a human perspective, Kelly may be correct about the slim chances for renewing a declining religious organization. But the Church is more than a human institution. The Church belongs to Christ, and the Church is divine. Certainly we must not abandon hope for a new day. I believe we can see church renewal and the reversal of institutional decline.

Fresh start.

The Biblical formula for renewal remains clear: renewal comes through repentance and obedience. The Biblical prescription for renewal does not begin with spending more money, reorganizing structures, maintaining the status quo or sacrificially giving oneself for organized religion. We need the forgiveness which follows repentance and the rekindled fellowship with God which results from obedience to His Word.

Jesus’ declaration remains prophetic for our own time:

Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. … Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father. … Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. (Matt. 7: 15-27).

Regression and decline are not inevitable. Hearty repentance and faithful obedience to God can bring us a fresh start.

Harry Emerson Fosdick once issued a challenge that bears repeating:

[One] is an excellent cook who knows how to make a good dinner out of the left-overs, and hardly a more invigorating truth is taught by history than that most of the finest banquets spread for the delectation of the race have been prepared by [those] who made them out of the leavings of disappointed hopes.[16]

Ezekiel insisted that dry bones can live again. We can see renewal in our time.

But renewal must come on God’s terms, not ours. When we obey God’s Word and rely on God’s power we will experience spiritual revival and institutional growth. As we respond to Christ’s call, the Holy Spirit will give us His wisdom, favor and anointing. And then-we shall reverse decline and glorify the Father.

Dr. Kenneth Kinghorn is vice-president at large of Asbury Theological Seminary. He is co-author of Discovering and Using Your Spiritual Gifts, new from Bristol Books.

[1] A fair presentation of theological liberalism at its best is L. Harold DeWolf. A Case For Theology In Liberal Perspective. The Westminster Press. 1959.

[2] Henry P. Von Dusen. The Vindication Of Liberal Theology. Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1963. p. 56.

[3] Kenneth Cauthen. The Impact of American Religious Liberalism. Second Edition. University Press of America, 1983, p. 215.

[4] Liberalism generally regarded sin more as a defect or as ignorance than as a spiritual disease. Often liberalism focused on the social sources of evil rather than on the corruption of the human heart.

[5] Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) substituted human experience for scripture as the primary source for religious knowledge. His writings exerted a profound influence on Protestant thought.

[6] Jerry Walls. The Problem Of Pluralism: Recovering United Methodist Identity. Good News Books, 1986. p. 77.

[7] Peter Gay and Richard Lovelace hove compellingly demonstrated that heterodox theologies reach bock to the materialistic philosophy of ancient Greece and Rome. Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation: The Rise of Modern Paganism. Alfred A. Knopf. 1966. pp. 111-419: Richard Lovelace, Dynamics of Spiritual Life. InterVarsity Press. 1979. pp. 416-419.

[8] Albert C. Outler, Evangelism In The Wesleyan Spirit. Tidings, 1971. p. 106.

[9] Robert E. Chiles. Theological Transition in American Methodism. Abingdon Press. 1965. p. 16.

[10] William H. Willimon and Robert L. Wilson. ”The Present Crisis: The Impact of the Membership Decline in the Mainline churches.”” Quarterly Review. VII. #3, Fall. 1987. pp. 76, 77.

[11] Peter Drucker. The Effective Executive. Harper & Row, Publishers. 1967. p. 4.

[12] George G. Hunter III. To Spread The Power: Church Growth In The Wesleyan Spirit. Abingdon Press. 1987. p. 139.

[13] Two religion professors on campus were exceptions. They opposed the plan for renewing the college.

[14] Richard G. Hutcheson Jr., Mainline Churches And The Evangelicals. John Knox Press. 1981. pp. 16, 17.

[15] Dean M. Kelly. Why Conservative Churches Are Growing. A Study In The Sociology Of Religion. Harper & Row, Publishers, 1977, p. xviii.

[16] Harry Emerson Fosdick. The Meaning Of Being A Christian. Association Press. 1964. p.108.