This is both a report and perhaps a warning for churches of a
certain mindset and polity. The congregation where we now assemble recently
went through a long period without a pastor and a fairly sharp decline in
numbers. Now, much could be said about the 'pastoral' system but we can leave
that aside for the moment.
During the interim one of the men filling in convinced the
congregation to hire a Church Growth Consultant. This gentleman visited the
congregation on a few occasions and was given carte blanche to investigate the
congregation's records, finances and the like. After a few months he returned
and presented his report.
He began by speaking about congregations in distress and how
they haven't kept up with the times and have lost relevance. It was time for a
change and he knew what needed to be done. He insisted these recommended
changes must be implemented or the congregation will most certainly perish. He
warned that there will be those who resist and he referred to such people as
'emotional terrorists' because they want to hold people hostage and are defiant
despite the facts of the situation and the patent remedies he as a consultant
would offer. His methods (he assured us) were tried and true and he knew how to
'rescue' ailing congregations.
It was all very interesting to be sure. So what advice did he
offer? How could this congregation of 50 in a town of 6,000 flourish once more?
Apart from the doctrinal and theological considerations I was
somewhat surprised that this man who was taking a very market-driven, worldly
approach to ecclesiastical health and well-being failed to look into or grasp
the economic and demographic aspects of the question. Do these issues affect
doctrine? No, they certainly do not but congregations can decline for many
reasons and often combinations of reasons. And besides, doctrine and Scripture
were the least of his concerns. This man was only interested in what works,
what brings in the numbers. Pragmatism provides the basis of his thought and
guides and shapes his epistemology and doctrine.
While this once Fundamentalist now Fundamentalist-Evangelical
hybrid congregation has faced decline due to its social and theological
conservatism, it has also declined for very practical reasons. The town has
been losing its population for decades and the population that remains is
aging. The Rust Belt economy has devastated not only this town but most in the
region and many have moved away and few young people are likely to stay.
I have talked to people in many congregations in the area and
the story is always the same. Some people leave over doctrine. They want 'new',
they want entertainment, programmes and the like. Young people leave the area,
others apostatise and fall away. Old people die and over the course of twenty
years this can prove numerically devastating to a small congregation.
I know of several churches that had over 100 people in the
1990's and today struggle to have 20 people on a Sunday morning. They once had
vibrant youth programmes, choirs and all sorts of activities (for what that's
worth) and today they are reduced to a handful of older people. One local
Baptist congregation is down to about 15 people, the youngest regularly
attending adult is pushing 60. This is not uncommon in this area. This
congregation with its 50 people is actually doing numerically quite well when
compared to most conservative churches in the area.
The consultant had the answers but the people were going to
have to follow his advice. It literally makes me ill to think of how much money
the congregation gave this man (about $6000 for his fee) but at the same time
the episode was instructive and generated many interesting discussions both
with the people in the church and within my own family.
The consultant said that the building was just simply
unsuitable and out of date. They should consider relocating. Never mind the
fact that the New Testament has nothing to say about buildings and that they
didn't appear for a couple of centuries after the Church was founded. Despite
the consultant's professed adherence to Scriptural authority it was evident
that the Bible is not even on the table when it comes to his ecclesiology.
The building is old by California standards, but it's typical
by the standards of Rust Belt Pennsylvania. It's absolutely fine, in good
condition and actually too big for the existing congregation.
I'm all for getting rid of the building but not to replace it
with a new one. Of course the congregation, while considerably more vibrant and
age-diverse than the examples mentioned above is nevertheless comprised of a
fair number of older people and there's little money for such an endeavour, let
alone any viable need. The building is fine and there's plenty of room for
growth.
The decor of the building is all wrong he insisted. Better
lighting is needed, a new sound system and certainly some better decorations
and layout. They need a welcome room where visitors can be greeted and given
gifts when they attend.
Ah, if only Paul had thought of such gimmicks. No doubt Nero
could have been toppled, right? Dominionism though not elaborated was always in
the background of the discussion. Numbers aren't just about numbers, they're
about shaping the culture of the community. There was a lot of Christo-American
verbiage, confusion between the Church, the nation and the culture. A small but
solid congregation isn't good enough. You can't win the culture that way.
The instrumentation is all wrong we were told. Now I'll grant
as a Biblicist I can agree with that statement but of course our meanings
couldn't be further apart. Instrumentation has no part in New Testament
worship. It's Levitical and obsolete. As I've mentioned elsewhere a case can be
made for musical accompaniment to keep a tune. This view insists the music is
not an element of worship and thus as
a practical measure (just to help keep a tune) it must be kept simple.
Performance should be eschewed. I appreciate the view though I don't hold to
it. I believe a capella singing is
the New Testament model. People will be shy at first but they'll learn to sing.
This is all in keeping with my 'Up Front' rule. When you walk into an
auditorium (hopefully not referred to as a Sanctuary) the more you see up
front, the further away from New Testament worship the congregation is.
Christian worship utilises the Word, bread, wine and water. Anything else
(apart from maybe a hymn book) is extra-Scriptural, superfluous and potentially
subversive.
That said, I do not make these issues Gospel matters. I will attend churches that have musical
instruments but I grow very uncomfortable with performance and I won't
participate in it, even to the extent of refusing to watch a 'special' or
anything along those lines. I keep my head down and read waiting for it to
end... trying to keep my mind and heart in the right place and with the right
focus.
Of course most contemporary Evangelical services are nothing but performance and even the
'sermons' practically fall into that category.
And that's exactly what the consultant was advocating. He
wanted electrical guitars, keyboards and the sound and light system to go along
with it. Their piano and organ were outdated and insufficient. The church
needed to utilise more technology. He also upbraided the congregation for
'dressing up' too much and he wanted to see a more casual look that would make
visitors feel more comfortable and less intimidated.
This was particularly ironic because as one who lived and
attended church in the South I can safely say that people in this area don't
dress up. Most of the men and women are wearing casual dress clothes at best,
the type of clothes you would wear to a small town office or for going out to
dinner. Granted no one is in pajamas or athletic gear but some of the
twenty-somethings are in flip-flops. Most Sundays I wear khaki pants and a polo
or button down shirt and I fit right in. The environment is not akin to
Fundamentalist circles in which the men all look like John Wayne and the women
look like Mrs. Cleaver, skirts, pumps and all. It's nothing like that at all,
and even those congregations are abandoning those old standards. At the present
church we attend people are casual but respectful.
When I lived in the Carolinas if I didn't wear a jacket and
tie I stuck out. It was the 1990's and some older women were still wearing hats
and I even saw a few gloves.
There's nothing in the New Testament about dressing up and I
associate most of it with a Judaizing 'going to Temple' or Sanctuary mindset,
where the building now becomes a hallowed place. I appreciate the call to
'respect' and reverence and yet focus on dress can become an issue of pride and
self-focus. I'm not going to show up in my work clothes but I'm also not going
to wear a three-piece suit. I don't dress formally for work and thus I do not
have a lot of 'nice' clothes. I'm not morally compelled to go out and spend a
bunch of money so I can 'dress up' for church.
But as far as the consultant goes, his thinking is pure
rubbish and unbiblical. He said the ideal was to see a guitarist up front in
baggy shorts and flip-flops. He literally said that.
I hope the reader realises that there's nothing casual about
this. In fact it's a determined and programmatic look and this all harks back
to Rick Warren and other figures that (in keeping with the culture trends) took
Church Growth in a new direction during the 1990's. Their 'casualness' is
actually a type of 'look' that they're after. It's a marketing ploy and little
more and that's what the consultant was all about. To him the church is built
in the same way you build a store franchise and by the same principles.
The customer is always right.
They should have run him out, but instead they gave this wolf
in sheep's clothing a paycheck.