Quotes and Takeaways from Christian Smith’s Book, Why Religion Went Obsolete
Christian Smith’s book, Why Religion Went Obsolete, is a sobering wake-up call. We would be wise to consider his well-researched work. And wake up to reality and make adjustments to meet the challenges ahead as best we can.
Smith[1] contends that a profound and multifaceted cultural shift has made traditional American religion increasingly irrelevant and unattractive. He argues that “Religion has not merely declined; it has become culturally obsolete.”[2] The irrelevance of religion is different than just decline or secularization. Instead, Smith basically summarizes the problem this way: “The vibes are off.”[3]
The cultural air we breathe essentially contains pollutants that subtly shape people. It makes them not care about or have time or attention for religion. We may not like it, but we can’t change reality by ignoring it. But it’s not just the surrounding culture that is at fault for the decline. The church itself is liable. One of Christian Smith’s chapter titles is fittingly, “Religious Self-Destructions.”
Many Christian leaders don’t realize the extent of what’s going on. Or they would rather stay the course, doing more of the same. Yet, if we continue on this course, we will get more of the same but with increasingly less successful results. If Christian leaders don’t make the necessary changes, they will burn up and burn out. They will think the answer is more—more of everything and better everything. But that’s not the answer. If we understand the problem incorrectly, we will not be able to come up with the correct solution, and we will be weary and discouraged.
Imagine someone buys a brand-new electric car. But when it starts acting up, they open the hood and start looking for the carburetor. They look around for spark plugs and try to change the oil. They’re frustrated because they don’t know what to do, and nothing looks familiar. But they just keep trying to do the same old thing.
What’s the problem? They’re treating an electric car like it’s a gas-powered one. Same idea on the outside—four wheels, steering wheel, gets you from point A to B—but a completely different system under the hood. We assume what worked before will work again, without realizing the “engine” has changed. We can’t keep using gas tools on electric systems.
We aren’t in Christendom anymore. Christians are speaking a dying language. Church buildings and institutions are increasingly seen as out of touch. Increasingly, America resembles Europe and the culture of Rome at the time of the early church.
What’s the solution?[4] Christian Smith suggests getting down to the core. What are Jesus’ followers trying to do and why? What are the essential core traditions, identities, and missions—without which we would not exist—versus cultural positions that may seem non-negotiable but are actually liabilities? We can’t scramble to just try to keep the status quo intact. A whole new paradigm is needed.[5]
10 Quotes from Why Religion Went Obsolete
“Traditional religion has been losing ground among Americans, especially younger ones, no matter how you measure it: affiliation, practices, beliefs, identities, number of congregations, and confidence in religious organizations have all been declining” (p. 34).
“American religion’s demise has not been due to its farfetched belief contents—as most atheists and some secularization theorists would have it—but because of its own fossilized cultural forms that it was unable to shake. Religion in the Millennial zeitgeist felt alien and disconnected from what mattered in life—in short, badly culturally mismatched. The vibes were off” (p. 338).
“Church closings overtook new church plantings in the latter 2010s.18 In 2014, an estimated 4,000 new Protestant churches were planted, while 3,700 closed that year, resulting in a net gain of 300. In 2019, before COVID-19 spread in the United States, about 3,000 Protestant churches were started but 4,500 closed, resulting in a net loss of 1,500 in one year” (p. 32).
“In 2000, the median number of attendees at a worship service was 137 people. By 2020, that number was reduced to 65—a 52% loss in size in 20 years” (p. 32-33).
“In the mid-1980s, more than two-thirds of Americans believed that clergy had high or very high moral standards. By 2021, however, those ratings were cut by more than half, from 67% in 1985 to 32% in 2023. The ratings by younger Americans, ages 18-34, fell even more sharply, from a high of 70% in 1985 to a mere 22% in 2021” (p. 35).
“Most Americans see religion as a non-essential—an option, a supplement, a life accessory from which someone may or may not benefit” (p. 47).[6]
“The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur” (p. 60).
“In brief, one key takeaway about the Millennial zeitgeist is this: through immense, tectonic shifts in global and national sociocultural orders, the terrain on which religion and secularism have long contended as binary rivals has undergone upheaval and reconfiguration. New players have gained in numbers and influence. The cultural landscape has become more complex and, for religion, more challenging than before. Understanding the big picture adequately requires recognizing the larger significance of this rise of spirituality and occulture” (p. 335).[7]
“Not all Americans pay attention to these denominational culture wars. But those who do quickly learn that these religious groups are not simply collections of believers who share similar creeds and convictions. They are bureaucratic institutions-an immediate red flag for those who distrust organizations-with complex administrative structures” (p. 269).
Many “believe religious institutions are at best superfluous and at worst dangerous” (p. 347).[8]
Notes
[1] Christian Smith is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Sociology and founding director of the Center for the Study of Religion and Society at the University of Notre Dame.
[2] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete: The Demise of Traditional Faith in America, 2. “The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur” (Ibid., 60).
[3] Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 338. “The issues, rather, thrash around the semiconscious subjectivities of young people who rove about their lives with fine-tuned antennae sensing whether or not things give off the right ‘vibe.’ Does it ‘resonate?’ Does it give off ‘good energy?’ Life in this dimension is sorted out in realms of tacit, intuitive, instinctive knowledge and response–always informed by the background zeitgeist. Cultural mismatch meant that, for most younger Americans, traditional religion did not resonate, so they discarded it.” (Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 64)
[4] It has been wisely said, “Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets.” Perhaps part of the problem is the current “design” of the church.
[5] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 372. Many do not understand the need for a new paradigm. “The denial is also present within many churches, as older believers pastors and laity alike-respond to the falling away of young people from faith with either flat denial of the seriousness of the problem or by resorting to failed strategies that at least feel familiar. A Southern Baptist pastor friend focused on evangelizing youth complained bitterly to me that the church’s state-level leadership was spending a fortune on programs that made sense in the 1980s, when those leaders were young, but that had no chance of working today. This allowed the leaders to believe that they were doing something to address the crisis of unbelief among the so-called Zoomers, when in fact these leaders were only propping up illusions of a glorious Christian past” (Rod Dreher, Living in Wonder: Finding Mystery and Meaning in a Secular Age, 101).
[6] If church is simply a “service” where we go and sit, then to a great extent, most people’s perception is true.
[7] See also, for example, Carl Trueman’s book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism, and the Road to Sexual Revolution.
[8] “Institutional religion compelled them to distance themselves from religion” (Ibid.). “One can subtract the institution and retain the essence of religion” (Ibid.).
The Solution for Church Decline is Getting Back to the Simple Center
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and it’s not mega church. The solution, first and foremost, is a work of the Spirit, but the Spirit uses means. One of the means the Spirit has used in the past is reformation. I don’t quite have 95 Theses, but I do have some serious concerns and believe there’s a need for reformation.
The Spirit worked and brought reformation through Martin Luther at the time of the Reformation. And John Wesley worked by the power of the Spirit to bring about the reformation of the church of England. In both cases, something new was the result: a formation rather than a reformation, because in those two instances, the church would not reform.
I think the church has been missing the main thing for a long time. As the song “The Heart of Worship” by Matt Redman says,
I’m comin’ back to the heart of worship
And it’s all about You
It’s all about You, Jesus…
I’m sorry, Lord, for the thing I’ve made it
When it’s all about You
It’s all about You, Jesus
Evaluation & Examination
We need to evaluate what we see as success and examine what Scripture says on this matter. What is our aim and why? If our desire is for our church to become a bigger and bigger name-brand church and for success for “our” church, we’re missing it.[1] Many churches’ articulation of their mission is very similar—something like, “To lead people to become fully devoted followers of Christ.”However, their pathway to practicing their own priorities is often hindered by the very structures they’ve built and the goals they strive for in practice.
Most churches base their mission statements around the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20). Which is great. “Go,” however, is often translated as “come” or “bring people to church.” And “Make disciples” is translated to mean “have classes within the confines of the church.” “Observe everything I have commanded you” is often translated “know everything about everything.”
So, what is the solution to church decline? First, we must have a healthy evaluation of what the goal is or what we’re aiming for. Is our desire to be the biggest and baddest (in the slang positive sense) church? The world’s most theologically astute, correct, and pure church? What is our aim? Is our goal really to make disciples? If so, are we doing it?
Disciples are not like widgets on an assembly line. They can’t be mass-produced or microwaved.[2] They need to be walked with and experience lived discipleship. Many times in church, we’re content with the equivalent of Jar Jar Binks, but Jesus wants to build an army of Jedi. As has been said, “Slow is the new fast.” Jedi’s may take lots of time to develop, but they’re a lot more effective at defeating the dark side.
The prevailing discipleship model reminds me of “meat chickens.” They’re bred to grow extremely fast. They’re engineered to reach full size in just a few weeks. On the outside, they look a lot like normal chickens. But there’s a cost—most of them can’t stand on their legs. They’re not what they were designed to be and can’t do what they were designed to do. They just consume and get consumed. Disciples were never meant to be just consumers. Disciples were meant to be lovingly deployed in the places where they work, live, and play.
We must examine Scripture and evaluate if our current practices are best in line with the values of Scripture. For example, elsewhere in looking at the “one another” passages in the Bible, I propose we make changes and make it incredibly difficult for people to be passive observers of church. I also propose we shift from a “come and see” church model to a “go and tell” church model.
I believe the very structure of church that has become sacrosanct is liable to suffocate the very soul of the church. Church is not a building. Church is not a business. Church is not something you go to for one hour once a week for a service or “worship experience.”
Church is a body of people who are called and commanded to be allegiant to Jesus with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength. Church is not about going to a service. It’s more about serving Jesus in a world that needs to know Him. It’s about loving Jesus and loving like Jesus and regularly gathering with the saints to be better equipped and better able to do what Jesus has called us to do.
Sometimes the structure, amenities, entertainment, and desire for and near perfection of the church service, communicate church is a lot more about people being comfortable, than about following the crucified and reigning Christ. The saying, “The medium is the message,” emphasizes that the characteristics of the communication channel play a significant role in shaping how a message is perceived and understood compared to its specific content. This concept was popularized by media theorist Marshall McLuhan. He argued that the medium by which the message is delivered influences our perceptions, thoughts, and social structures more profoundly than the information it conveys.
The medium isn’t just a neutral container for information; it actively shapes the message and its impact. McLuhan argued that the medium’s effects on our society, culture, and individual psyches are more significant than the specific content it transmits. The medium by which something is communicated is not neutral. The medium itself has an impact beyond the specific content it conveys.
So, when the church gathers in a near-perfect setting with amazing music and speaking, it has an impact beyond the message that is shared in the service. The setting, structure, and the whole of the service (the medium) can often contradict the very message that is shared. When everything is structured to serve and cater to the spectators, it contradicts what Scripture says; that we are to “offer our bodies as living sacrifices” (Rom. 12:1). Is it then any wonder that we have 10% of people in the church doing 100% of the work of the church?
Deconstruction & Reformation
Like it or not, as leaders responsible for our times, we simply have to be willing to submit the inherited ecclesial system to a thoroughgoing audit. We have to accept that what has got us to this point in history—which is now long-term trended decline in every setting in the West—will simply not get us to a viable future. We can no longer allow ourselves to act as if more of the same thinking and doing is going to bring about fundamentally different results. As the ever-insightful Albert Einstein noted, the problems of the world cannot be resolved by the same kind of thinking that created those problems in the first place.[3]
There is a need for the deconstruction of some things within the church and reformation by the Spirit. I believe it is for good reason that many people find the prevailing church model irrelevant. Of course, we should never bow to culture, but culture can give insights into things that we may be blind to. The sheer number of people who have deconstructed should perhaps make us consider whether there are things in church that should be deconstructed. Unnecessary things in church are unnecessary, and sometimes those things have been exalted to near-sacred status.[4]
The church is still and always in need of reformation (Semper Reformanda). “We must learn to be suspicious of our cultural assumptions and be willing to take a scalpel to the cultural forms that have built up around our Christian beliefs.”[5] As Francis Asbury said, “At the Reformation, the reformers only beat off part of the rubbish.”[6]
Semper Reformanda is not just for the 1500s. It’s something for now. And as Asbury and others have pointed out, the previous reformations didn’t take things quite far enough. We need an ecclesiological and missiological reformation. We must look at the mirror of God’s word and see the church for what it is and make the needed adjustments. This is not idealism, it’s sacrificial faithfulness.
Much of the trellis needs to be trimmed for us to have a healthy vine. For too long, the trellis—the structures and systems, buildings and branding—has been what we have given our attention to. And it is becoming unwieldy. If we are to put the attention on the fruit of the vine, we need to give up much of the trellis. The branches themselves need pruning, but many are not even willing to trim any part of the trellis. Some of our physical buildings and organizational structures should be considered for the chopping block.
As Alan Hirsch often says, “‘We are perfectly designed to produce what we are currently producing.’ What we are seeing should not surprise us. Rather, we should redesign the system to produce different outcomes.”[7]
Implementation & Demonstration
We need the implementation of different healthy church structures and the demonstration that these new structures work to form faithful followers of Jesus. A new trellis for a new and healthier vine. There are already faithful “tests of concept.”[8]
The explosive early church is the first successful test of concept, but we see various modern examples. We see it in the underground church in China, North Korea, and parts of the Middle East. We’re also seeing the beginning of microchurch movements in parts of the USA.[9]
If the current model is not the answer, where is the counter model? Who will pick up the shovel and build with me? Who will reconstruct from the wreckage? Who will sacrifice and even step off staff, if necessary? If the ship is sinking, who is going to swim and salvage what you can?
What if churches had deep instead of surface relationships, discipled instead of entertained, and emphasized the church body instead of the building? What if we were intergenerational instead of isolating, cared about character instead of charisma, and emphasized the ministry of people instead of “superpastors”? What if pastors deeply knew people, we were authentic instead of artificial, and simple instead of complex?
What if churches were co-laborers instead of competitors? What if every person used their gifts where they work, live, and play, and it wasn’t just about the “professionals” standing on the stage?
The desire and what we strive for is to activate every disciple’s latent potential and produce healthy disciples, multiplying microchurches, hubs, and networks. Is this happening? It is in places, and the seed is sprouting in mid-Ohio. Farming, like Christian leadership, takes time, lots of work, and lots of reliance on God.
This is some of how we’re building authentic, simple, replicable, relational microchurches all built on the essential foundation of the Lord Jesus:
- Deep Relationships: Move beyond surface-level interactions to genuine, heartfelt connections where we know and care for one another. This includes practicing the “one another” passages of Scripture, such as bearing burdens, forgiving, encouraging, and praying for one another.
- Intergenerational Community: Integrate people of all ages to foster mutual learning, encouragement, and faith formation. Older Christians mentoring younger ones, while younger members bring fresh perspectives and energy.
- Shared Meals and Fellowship: Regularly gather for meals to cultivate hospitality, build relationships, and create a sense of family. This practice mirrors the early church’s “breaking of bread” and love feasts.
- Relational Evangelism: Focus on sharing the gospel through authentic relationships rather than relying solely on church invitations, programs, and church services. Christians are encouraged and equipped to live missionally in their daily lives.
- Hospitality: Open homes and hearts to welcome others, creating a culture of generosity and inclusion. Hospitality is seen as a vital expression of Christian love and a powerful evangelistic tool.
- Mutual Ministry: Empower all members of the church to use their spiritual gifts for the common good, rather than relying on a “superpastor” or professional clergy. This reflects the biblical concept of the priesthood of all believers.
- Authenticity Over Artificiality: Create space where people can be honest about their struggles and joys, avoiding curated or staged experiences. The church should be a “hospital” for the broken, not a “beauty pageant.”
- Unity and Collaboration: Foster unity within the church and across churches, focusing on Kingdom growth rather than competition. Members should work together to advance the gospel and support one another.
- Biblical Practices: Ground the community in Scripture, including regular prayer, teaching, singing, and celebrating the Lord’s Supper. These practices help the church remain spiritually rooted and focused on Christ.
- Missional Living: Encourage and equip the church to live out their faith in the places they work, live, and play. The church is seen as a body that gathers to be built up and scatters to bless.
These elements aim to create a church community that is relationally connected, spiritually vibrant, and missionally engaged, reflecting the biblical ideal of the body of Christ, house to house, city to city, and nation to nation.
Notes
[1] Paul’s consuming desire was that Jesus be preached. He wasn’t about his name in lights or about building a brand. Paul said, “Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice,” (Phil. 1:18). It often seems the desire of the church leadership is for the growth of the church, but not the growth of the disciples in the church. We make fans and spectators, not players on the field and soldiers (Contra 2 Tim.2:1-10). Jesus’ expectation, in contrast, is that people would stop following Him because it was so hard (Jn. 6:67). Jesus didn’t pamper or pander to people, Jesus laid out the bare excruciating reality of what it means to follow Him (Matt. 16:24). Jesus also knew the high cost of following Him was abundantly worth it (Matt. 16:25).
[2] Brad Brisco shares about repeatedly seeing an ad on his social media feed titled “Double Your Church in 90 Days.” Here’s Brisco’s reflection: “While it may sound appealing, it reflects a very problematic mindset. It reduces the church to numbers, promotes short-term thinking, and pressures leaders with unrealistic expectations. Kingdom growth is Spirit-led, highly contextual, and often slow; measured not simply by attendance, but by transformed lives and faithful presence. Discipleship can’t be microwaved.”
[3] Alan Hirsch, 5Q: Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[4] I do believe there is an ecclesiological minimum and that churches must at least obtain that minimum. Qualified leadership, preaching/teaching, scripture, singing, sacraments, for example.
[5] My friend, who wisely and faithfully pastors in England and who shares a lot of that wise faithfulness here, wrote this article from which I take his quote (Stephen Kneale, “Assumptions Without Reflection: Assessing Cultural Values in Light of Biblical Values“).
[6] https://seedbed.com/methodism-as-a-revivalistic-movement/
[7] Alan Hirsch, Lance Ford, Rob Wegner, The Starfish and the Spirit: Unleashing the Leadership Potential of Churches and Organizations.
[8] “Test of concept” is often used to refer to the market research used to evaluate the potential success of a new product, service, or idea.
[9] Here are some websites to look at: noplaceleft, 1body.church, l1achurchfortmyers, and churchinnorthcentralohio.
The Solution for Church Decline is Not Mega Church
In a previous post, I wrote that “The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same.” However, the church in America, for the most part, operates with the Christendom paradigm. We are attempting to navigate the post-Christian, postmodern, late capitalist challenges of the twenty-first century with a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment, 1700-year-old European template of the church. It’s like we are trying to negotiate New York City using a map of Los Angeles.[1] “The maps don’t fit the territories, and more importantly it does not fully square with the New Testament.”[2]
[I should probably say here that I was “inside the belly of the beast” of a mega church. I served on staff as a youth pastor, care pastor, and campus pastor. I have seen it from the inside with really good, faithful people, and I don’t think it’s the solution. Which is part of the reason why I’m not there anymore.]
Mega Churches Tend to Breed Consumerism
As churches grow, “there is a decline among churchgoers in per capita giving, willingness to volunteer, and a lower overall level of participation within the congregation. This lends credence to the stereotype that some attendees of larger churches are looking for a place to spectate but not serve.”[3] Whereas “Smaller churches (those with 100 or fewer each week) have high levels of member commitment. The congregations have greater percentage of member participation in weekly worship. Participants give more money per person and are more likely to volunteer. These churches spend less on staffing and give the highest percentage of their budget toward missions and charity.”[4]
Mega church tends to breed consumers and spectators instead of servants; fans instead of sold-out followers. The very structure of many churches’ “service” communicates that people are there to sit and be served. It seems people increasingly go to bigger churches for a good experience.[5]
The gathering of the church was always intended to build up the church body so that the church is better equipped and encouraged to be the church. But experience and entertainment-oriented gatherings mainly atrophy the ministerial muscles of the church. Putting on a show only severs the nerve to service.
Living in relationship and serving in our communities where we work, live, and play takes sacrifice and often the reordering of our schedules. It’s not convenient. We often make church convenient—online church, community on your terms when you want to make time for it, and a “worship experience”—but following Jesus has never been convenient. Jesus is the Lord, the boss of the universe for whom ever being will bow, we are to be allegiant to Him, whether it’s convenient or not.
There is a principle in the military that I think is instructive—“Train as we fight.” When I was in the army, we didn’t train with Nerf guns, and we didn’t throw tennis balls and act like they were grenades. Nope, we used real weapons and we did real pushups. I think the church sometimes gets this backward. Church training is the equivalent of “Duck Hunt.” It’s fun, it’s easy, and sometimes laughable. Jesus said, “If you’re going to follow Me you will need to take up your cross and be willing to give up everything.” Pastors often say that with their lips but the very structure of the church contradicts the teaching.
Mega Churches Can’t Grow Fast Enough
A mega church can’t grow fast enough to keep up with the rate of decline. Think of the quick and nibble multiplication of “rabbit churches” in contrast to the plodding, slow, and expensive “elephant churches.” The apostle Paul’s missionary method was not to plant elephant churches, but rabbit churches.[6]
We should intentionally pursue what makes for the rapid multiplication of healthy disciples. This will call for us to be collaborators, not competitors, and care about actual growth, not transfer growth. Buildings, budgets, and even butts in seats are not necessarily an indicator of health or faithfulness to Jesus’ commands.
With over four billion people without Jesus, it’s prudent to devise plans, strategies, and methods that facilitate the healthy growth of disciples, leaders, and churches. While there’s biblical freedom that allows for culturally influenced approaches, not all such expressions are conducive to healthy church multiplication.[7]
Mega Churches aren’t Set Up Well To Prepare the Next Generation of Leaders
Mega church isn’t set up well to prepare the next generation of leaders for the challenges of the future. “Most future pastors will come from larger churches, since that’s where the majority of churchgoers attend. But most of the pastoral jobs will be in small churches, since that’s the majority of congregations.”[8]
Most future pastors will not be prepared for the realities they will face at these small churches. They may need to be willing to work an additional job outside the church or accept substantially less money than they ever expected to live on.[9] These pastors’ philosophy of ministry and their conception of what it means to serve as a pastor will also need a redo.
Many people preparing for the pastorate have preconceived notions of what it’s like to be a pastor. Many see pastors as the equivalent of local rock stars. They see the lives of pastors as glamorous. Some want-to-be-pastors think pastors sit in their study, leave to speak to the masses, and after the applause return to their cloistered repose. Seminary often prepares pastors for the study and not the flock. The mega church, it would seem, often prepares pastors for social media, and not the flock. Disillusionment is the result.
Mega Churches Tend to Constrict the Full Functioning of the Church Body
Churches often implicitly communicate that the pastor is the professional who does the ministry. This was never supposed to be the case. Rather, every member of the church body is to be equipped for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ (Eph. 4:12). There is a concept in Christianity called “the priesthood of all believers” (see 1 Peter 2:4-9). It teaches that there is no special class of Christian. Jesus is the sole person who gives access to God (Jn. 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5), and no other special office is needed for that role. Jesus makes all of His people part of the “priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5, 9). So, all Christians are to be active participants. The church is a body with many parts and many different giftings; it is vital that each part does its part (1 Corinthians 12:1-27, Romans 12:4-8, Ephesians 1:1-23). Let’s cast off any garb that could constrict the full functioning of Christ’s body.
Mega Churches Consolidate Resources
Mega churches consolidate resources. It is similar to what happens in a siege. It is a “game of attrition.” Mega churches have a type of efficiency that results from gathered resources and the ability to have fewer pastors per attendee, due to the potential for repeating church services and live streaming at other campuses. Higher-paying pastoral positions can be supplemented with lower-paying positions. Mega churches have found a way to get the “most bang for their buck.” But what are the unseen downsides to all the pizzazz of a mega church? Here are a few: superstar pastor culture,[10] less pastoral care, less connection and community, and a consumeristic mentality.
We should see it for what it is, a consolidation of resources and growth in one church, which is not necessarily growth in the Church. Also, mega churches are typically competitively consolidating and “taking over” other churches. Consolidation in partnership in mission is a praiseworthy goal. More often, however, the goal is much more partisan.
Here’s another way of saying it, a mega church may have a bigger slice of the pie but that doesn’t mean there is more pie. If mega churches are better stewards of the church flock and are more faithful in making disciples this is a positive thing. I, however, am not convinced this is the case (for reasons I have articulated here and elsewhere).
Mega Churches Attract Some but Repel Others
Mega church tends to not be for people on the margins. But Jesus was about people on the margins of society. At least in 2009, Myev Rees said, “The majority of megachurch-goers are white, middle-class or affluent suburbanites.” The numbers may have changed some but this seems to still tend to be the case. Regardless, large churches that seem to have it all together will only attract a specific demographic. What about all the people who find big polished churches plastic, overly institutional, and annoying?
These churches may attract a certain type of demographic, but there is a whole host of people it repels. So, if all the other negative aspects of mega church can be dealt with then they have their place but they’re not the solution to church decline.
Mega Churches Tend To Be About Brand Building and Less About Kingdom Building
Discipleship and evangelism have given way to branding and marketing. The net result is some churches are growing and the pastors reputation is booming. But sometimes the name of Jesus and His Church suffers as a result.
I recently read a newsletter from a church. It gave the number of people in the city and then said “We want every single person to know about ______ church.” They even hired a marketing company. The big asks in the email were (1) give more money and (2) leave a good Google review to help SEO/search results. I get it and I know the pastor who composed the email is genuine and loves Jesus and wants to see people continue to come to Jesus for salvation. But when did brand building become the emphasis and main strategy?
It’s about Jesus and His Name—the name that is about all other names—and not any name brand church. Buildings, brands, and institutions will fall but Jesus is the Lord forever. He deserves our eternal allegiance.
What Is the Solution?
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church[11] either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter, consumerism, and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to lay out my thoughts on the solution in a future post.)
Notes
[1] Alan Hirsch, 5Q:Reactivating the Original Intelligence and Capacity of the Body of Christ.
[2] Hirsch, 5Q.
[3] https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/
[4] Ibid.
[5] “U.S. congregations are increasingly small, while U.S. churchgoers are increasingly headed toward larger churches.” So, “The larger a church is, the more likely it is to be growing.” (https://research.lifeway.com/2021/10/20/small-churches-continue-growing-but-in-number-not-size/) Is this because bigger churches are able to offer more amenities and a better experience?
[6] Of course, Paul would revisit the churches and write them letters encouraging them to pursue gospel health.
[7] See J.D. Payne’s helpful book, Pressure Points.
[9] Many, probably most, of the pastors I went to seminary with are not serving in ministry. This is for multiple reasons but one of the main reasons is most churches do not pay enough to reasonably live on.
[10] Mega churches can easily become a breeding ground for toxic leadership and lack of accountability.
[11] I, of course, realize that mega church is not the only alternative to decline. But the statistics show that smaller churches are growing smaller and larger churches are growing larger. Offhand, I’m not sure where the scales tip from “small” to “large” but I do believe we would do well to consider these trends and ask are they good? Is there anything we should or can do? What are the implications for more large churches and fewer small churches? Does this reflect Kingdom growth or primarily transfer growth? Does this lead to further fracturing of society, more disconnection, and more consumerism? What if any, are the alternatives?
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
The Solution for Church Decline is Not More of the Same
In his book Why Religion Went Obsolete, Christian Smith argues that a significant cultural shift has made traditional American religion increasingly irrelevant and unattractive. He argues that “Religion has not merely declined; it has become culturally obsolete.”[1] The irrelevance of religion is different than just decline or secularization.
The cultural air we unknowingly imbibe essentially contains pollutants that subtly shape people to not care about or have time or attention for religion. We may not like it but we can’t change reality by ignoring it. But it’s not just the surrounding culture that is at fault for the decline of church in the West. The church itself is liable. One of Smith’s chapter titles, “Religious Self-Destructions,” is spot-on.
Many Christian leaders don’t realize the extent of the problem or would rather stick to the same old ways. But if we keep doing the same thing, we’ll get the same results, but with less success. If Christian leaders don’t change course, they’ll burn out and become discouraged. They might think the answer is to do more of everything and make everything better, but that’s not the answer. If the problem is misunderstood we will not be able to come up with the correct solution.
Imagine someone buying a brand-new electric car. But when it starts acting up, they open the hood and start looking for the carburetor. They look around for spark plugs and try to change the oil. They’re frustrated because they don’t know what to do and nothing looks familiar. But they just keep trying to do the same old thing.
What’s the problem? They’re treating an electric car like it’s a gas-powered one. Same idea on the outside—four wheels, steering wheel, gets you from point A to B—but a completely different system under the hood. To fix it, they need a new kind of knowledge, a new toolset, and probably a whole new way of thinking.
Sometimes we try to fix new challenges in the church using recycled methodology. We assume what worked before will work again, without realizing the extent of change that has taken place and the challenges ahead.
We aren’t in Christendom anymore. Christians are speaking a dying language. Church buildings and institutions are increasingly seen as out of touch.
American religion’s demise has not been due to its farfetched belief contents—as most atheists and some secularization theorists would have it—but because of its own fossilized cultural forms that it was unable to shake. Religion in the Millennial zeitgeist felt alien and disconnected from what mattered in life—in short, badly culturally mismatched. The vibes were off.[2]
Christian Smith suggests getting down to the core. What are Jesus’ followers trying to do and why? What are the essential core traditions, identities, and missions—without which we would not exist—versus cultural positions that may seem non-negotiable but are actually liabilities? We can’t be satisfied with just trying to keep the status quo intact. A whole new paradigm is needed.[3]
The solution for church decline is not more of the same, and I don’t believe the solution is mega church either. I think the solution is Christians getting back to the simple center of Christ and Christ-formed communities without all the unnecessary clutter and cultural-Christian baggage.
(I plan to layout more of my thoughts in a few posts to follow)
Notes
[1] Christian Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 2. “The decline of traditional American religion is a massive social change, the kind that doesn’t happen often, and it can be difficult to wrap one’s head around how such a massive change can occur.” (Smith, Why Religion Went Obsolete, 60) “In 2000, the median number of attendees at a worship service was 137 people. By 2020, that number was reduced to 65—a 52% loss in size in 20 years.” (Ibid., 32-33).
[2] Ibid., 338.
[3] Ibid., 372.
*Photo by Paul Volkmer
in X 