What to do about our 'graying church'
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Woody Allen once said, "I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying."Ah, if only. But since Woody's desire doesn't seem to be a possibility for any of us, we have to make plans for what is going to happen to the people and the communities we love after we pass on. In the church, that means making sure that there are younger generations of people who will carry on the torch of the gospel and help to make disciples for Jesus Christ. But for many Protestant denominations in this culture, church members seem to be dying at a much faster rate than they are being replaced.
My own church is in this predicament. So I ask myself, "How can the United Methodist Church attract more younger members? How can we keep from being a 'graying church?'"
I've got some ideas on that, as I'm sure you do. But whatever solutions any of us thinks would work, we could all agree that having a toolkit with useful information about the church's demographic makeup - and trends - would be a big help.
As they have in the past, Lovett Weems and his staff at the Lewis Center for Church Leadership at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, D.C., have come through for the UMC. They have just released a new report that looks at the church's aging in the United States as compared to the overall population, which you can access here.
The methods in the report are creative and unorthodox, and they deliver results that I think are probably pretty accurate. The church is aging everywhere, though there are wide differences between regions of the country. And there are interesting differences in aging rates between annual conferences within the same jurisdiction as well. As you might imagine, the church is aging slowest in the South (i.e., in the Southeastern and South Central Jurisdictions), which is also the region where some annual conferences report modest growth at times. It's aging most quickly in the West, Midwest, and Northeast regions of the country.
Just based on the statistical data, there is nothing to suggest that predictions about a precipitous decline in church membership over the next few decades is off the mark at all. So the question then becomes, "What do we do about it?"
I offer my own views on this report in my new column in the UM Reporter. Feel free to check it out and share your own views. I appreciate the section of the Lewis Center report that makes suggestions about starting new churches and growing existing congregations. But ultimately I think those suggestions are fairly useless until they are informed by prior theological work.
The church will not grow again until we proclaim a gospel that reflects the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. If we are willing to proclaim that gospel and embody it in our common life, I suspect the Holy Spirit will bless us with fruits. If we do not, then Jesus will do what he says he will do to the church at Laodicea. I for one believe that the proclamation of the true gospel was the very reason God raised up people called Methodists in the beginning. And God can use us still, if we are willing.
So the real question for us is not really how we get younger, not-so-gray heads in our pews. It is rather how we can once again preach and practice the gospel once entrusted to us to save souls, reform the church, and spread scriptural holiness across the land.
Labels: Church Reform, UMC, Wesleyan Theology, Young Adults

13 Comments:
I mostly agree with you. We do need to focus, as you say, on preaching and practicing the gospel. However, this statement:
The church will not grow again until we proclaim a gospel that reflects the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
is empirically false. Joel Osteen often does not preach any gospel at all, and he's got the largest church in the United States. Many other prosperity preachers also have growing churches. I submit that growth is worthless as a measurement of a church's health.
That's an important point, Bruce. Thanks for making it. My statement in the post was not very nuanced.
I continue to wrestle with the issue of numbers when it comes to the faithful proclamation of the gospel. On the one hand, what you say about prosperity preachers is right on. In such cases, the numbers of people attracted to the message is no guarantee that the gospel is being faithfully proclaimed.
But on the other hand, the Scriptures speak of fruits borne out of faith - whether Jesus talking about prophets in Matthew 7 or Paul talking about fruits of the Spirit in Galatians 5. And while I can see how such passages could be read as the fruits produced in an individual's life, when I read them in light of the spread of the early church in Acts, they also seem to refer to fruits borne in others' lives:
"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:42-47).
So while I do think that numbers can never be some kind of absolute standard of faithfulness, neither do I think they are worthless as a measurement of the church's health.
Some group needs to do an indepth study as to why our Methodist kids after graduating from High School ad go to college or live on their own are electing to worship in Churches which offer praise type worship services. Can we not adjust and still maintain the integrity of Methodism?
Blessings,
Ed Long
Hi Ed,
I think the quick answer to your question--in my opinion--is yes. However, as a UM pastor still in his twenties, a simple switch to praise services may not be the magic solution. Many of my colleagues in their twenties, both lay and clergy, are quite mixed when it comes to worship style. Some desperately long for contemporary praise services, while others (those of a 'contemporary backlash') intentionally seek out a grounding in more traditional forms of worship, like a robust return to Word and Table I done well.
Personally, I've seen Methodists try--and often fail--at both traditional and contemporary. On the "traditional" side, I've seen churches cling to a boring, disconnected liturgy interspersed with a few choral anthems that resemble more the traditions of 1950 America than the traditions of the one catholic and apostolic church.
But I've also seen UM churches try hard to force contemporary services into their lineup thinking it will bring young adults running to their services. Often led by baby boomers (who like adult contemporary music anyway), these services face an up-hill challenge, especially when the quality cannot equal their good intentions. I guess I've seen a lot of poor quality worship on many fronts. And instead of trying to combine two poor quality services and call them "blended," I think more promise lies in understanding the unique gifts within each congregational context and then making sure worship is done well.
We twentysomethings love the buzz word "authentic," which may simply mean we have grown adept at sniffing out fake, contrived, or forced stuff. But note, we twentysomething also like to complain a lot. :)
God's grace and guidance be with you as you discern the best ways to engage people in worship.
PS: I think preaching style is another fascinating topic.
Great post Andrew,
One of the things I wonder about sometimes with all the talk about the greying church is how members are counted. As I understand the official membership totals (that 8-ish million number) includes ONLY professing members. So, when comparing the UMC's age to the general population, do they include baptized but non-professing members (who would account for the majority of our young children)? If not, then this would skew our averages older compared to the general population, which presumably counts children as well as the old.
This issue is avoided altogether in counting death rates. Good call.
Another great post, Andrew. Two things: one, while the UMC needs to address the fact that it's a "graying" church, it's not in nearly as bad of a position as many other denominations. Virtually all other mainline denominations have a much worse rate of membership decline than UMC, and unlike UMC, the rate at which their losing members is staying the same or gettting worse, whereas with the UMC, the rate of decline in membership is actually getting smaller (the last year they have stats for, I believe it was less than 1%). Second, I think we not only need to preach a Gospel of repentance and salvation, but we MUST preach it to young adults and college students. As Justin S pointed out, this doesn't mean just adding a contemporary service; this means finding areas/avenues where young adults congregate and communicate, and spread the good news there. I think the main problem with mainline denominations is that they've developed great children's ministries programs, but more and more children grow up and leave their hometown never to return, and they usually can't find a mainline church that reaches them spiritually, so they either go non-denominational or stop going.
I see this issue locally as our congregation discusses starting "contemporary" worship. There are a fair number of folks who are in favor of something they call "contemporary" worship - though as far as I can tell the most common thing they mean by that is: guitars, informal, Devotional instead of sermon (to keep things Lite).
I've done Lite service before. The only folks attracted were hippy types leftover from the 60s. And not many of them.
I detest "Lite" services, since in my experience "devotionals" aim to give people happy thoughts to manage their feelings. Sermons, (of many varieties and styles) on the other hand, engage substantively with scripture, Christian doctrine, and life.
http://samnunnally.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/learning-to-feel-god/
Instead of stealing and manipulating someone else blog, I have posted it. After reading some of the comments I added my 2 cents and then mailed it to 50 pastors and youth ministers. most i am sure filed it in the trash bin...on the other hand 50 (50 and younger) also recieved it and everyone has replied.
Small Groups
A "Challenging" message
Celebration of Being Christ filled
Tangible
accountability
are the words-phrases that are used to described the "authentic" service. Not Lite...not changing from organ to drums. Even John Wesley understood the role music (modern) plays in a service. Most of his music was written from old bar songs.
These people are looking to have thier HEART feed not their brain. They want the truth of Gods Word that is applicable.
A title - "lite", "authentic", "traditional", I will go as far as saying Methodist, or Baptist is just mans way of putting God in a box to be manipulated (one is better than the other)...I just want to love the Lord with all my heart and be around people who do the same.
You Greying Congregation question...not sure what the answer is but if we dont listen to the ppl with color in thier hair, you will have another title for them "GONE!" People want to "feel" (that is why they responded to the email) that how THEY believe something is authentic.
Good post.
The main thing that is being overlooked here is the culture that is emerging now in the United States. Whether people like it or not we are in a Post-Modern culture and this must be taken into account.
Younger generations want community and fellowship along with the ability to develop a relationship with God and to experience God in a manner that best suits them. However, this goes against the Church because the church states that the nature God is specific and to experience and develop a relationship with God one must follow adhere to this specific paradigm.
The younger generations want to explore the nature of God on their own terms and not be told what to believe and how to worship which is exactly what a church does far too often.
However, the church does offer the younger generations something that they can get nowhere else and that is community and fellowship. They can join clubs of all different kinds but the church is the one of the few places that people give of themselves to others.
In my opinion as a Gen-Xer and from being around many of my own kind as well as those younger than me, I can tell you that the fellowship aspect (meaning between individuals/God, parishoners/parishoners, parishoner/God) needs to be pushed as the main purpose of church as well as emphasising that the church focuses on Jesus as the way we come to understand and develop our relationship with God.
You can keep pushing eternal life and salvation as your goal but this will fail.
Whether you like it or not, the way to get younger generations involved to focus on relationships as I mentioned above.
Relationship with God, relationsthip with Jesus, relationship with parishoners.
Finally, too much is made of the worship service. Many will come to church and rarely set foot in the pews because that does not interest them. Again, they want to explore God in a way that suits them and many times a worship service does not. People will say that this is wrong and they must attend to worship God but again this does not take into account the new ways people are learning to worship God.
Stating that the church needs to return to an older time or that the church needs to be lifting up by the holy spirit is fine but they are just words. Ultimately, people of the church will need to reach out to others in a practical manner or watch as the churches of the United States follow the churches of Europe.
I don't want to interrupt this conversation, since I think some good views are being shared. I do want to respond briefly to a comment Joe made in the last comment, which was, "You can keep pushing eternal life and salvation as your goal but this will fail."
I would only say, first, that our response to God's desire for our salvation is the only reason we come together as the church at all. And secondly, don't shortchange what is meant by 'eternal life' and 'salvation'! I understand those terms in their truest Wesleyan sense, and I hope that is understood by readers of my column and blog writing.
Peace,
Andrew
The younger generations want to explore the nature of God on their own terms and not be told what to believe and how to worship which is exactly what a church does far too often.
However, the church does offer the younger generations something that they can get nowhere else and that is community and fellowship. They can join clubs of all different kinds but the church is the one of the few places that people give of themselves to others.
If you say these two statments and agree with them...You are doing what they (we) hate. Listen to them and then tell them they are wrong. -- We understand you want to do it this way but our way is better.
Both approaches are awesome. But the individual has to choose which is better for him/her. The church has to decide which way they want to worship. The individual that agrees with the first paragraph will tell you that He/She doesnt not fit in - as described in the second paragraph. This new "generation" is looking for different ways to be feed. listen to this song. stained glass masquerade...community and fellowship you can change the name of the congregations actions, but it is still doing what it has always done...in their eyes. they want actions not new titles
Andrew, good post. I will leave the worship style and theology questions aside. I think it's all about planting new churches. What is it that North GA is doing that CalPac isn't? That's one thing.
New churches attract new people. They attract new clergy. They allow for experimentation. They keep people focused on the mission, not the building.
GCFA should have the ages of church buildings or at least tenure of congregations at current location. If not, it would be a great study. Hypothesis:
All else equal, there is an inverse relationship between 1) how long a congregation has worshiped in their current location and 2) congregation size.
As one who spent a few years in Cal-Pac, I observed a prevailing conception of evangelism that didn't go farther than social action. While social action produces good, I haven't noticed it multiplying churches. They allowed themselves to be hampered by the high cost of land. Sure the land was high, but other churches were coming into existence, growing and thriving. The others, however, didn't seem to think they needed to buy their own land and build their own building right at the beginning.
Post a Comment
<< Home