Where Have All the Churches Gone?

Pete Seeger wrote a number of songs, which he recorded, but many were also made famous by others. He composed the following songs (some had collaborators): "If I Had a Hammer," "Kisses Sweeter Than Wine," "Turn, Turn, Turn," recorded by the Byrds, "The Bells of Rhymney," and "Where Have all the Flowers Gone?" The answer to this last question is that the flowers have all been picked by young girls. The young girls have all married husbands, who all put on uniforms; these soldiers have died and gone to graveyards, which have in turn gone to flowers.

It's not the kind of cycle people enjoy dwelling on, but it does contain some truth in it. Many churches of Christ are also going, and the Christian Chronicle (not a recommended publication) published in their May issue an article seeking to answer the question, "Where Did the People Go?" An illustration between columns contains a silhouette of a church building with a sign on it: "Where Have All the Churches Gone?" The answers and comments they print are disturbing, but even more so is that, despite the emphasis placed on Christian evidences and apologetics in the past four decades, our nation is becoming more atheistic.

Gallup research reported a year ago that over two decades the number of Americans who don't identify with any religion had increased from 8 percent in 1998-2000 to 21 percent by 2021 (6).

The general population continues to increase, but the number of religious people decreases dramatically—along with the number of church buildings. Part of the blame probably falls on the public education system, which is often (in certain places) hostile toward Christian principles. In fact, the more that communities cut themselves off from Christian principles, the more ungodly they become.

But do Christians not have a share in the blame also? Must not one of two things be true? Either Christians have not been evangelizing as they should, or the world is less receptive to the gospel. Some combination of the two may also be the case.

At any rate, those who read the Christian Chronicle (an earlier article also dealt with this subject) were asked to write in and say what the members of closed church buildings were doing since the church quit meeting. They acknowledge that they only had a few dozen responses. One person analyzing the situation, Stan Granburg, offered the following analysis.

…the more progressive members tend to go to independent Christian churches or community / nondenominational churches. Conservatives will go to a more conservative Church of Christ if they can find one (5).

Progressive?

A more accurate statement would be that the more digressive members go to a Christian or a community church. This explanation may, inadvertently, provide the reason the church in some areas has died out: Truth may not have been taught for years. If it had, brethren would know that the use of instrumental music is sin, and they would never even consider attending worship anywhere in which it was used.

It may seem difficult to believe that some congregations have never had a lesson dealing with singing versus instrumental music—or, in fact, the nature of the church Jesus built, but alas! it is the case. If they had, they surely would never consider, in their wildest dreams, ever attending a church that used instruments or professed to be a denomination.

Why is it that doing something the Bible does not authorize is termed progressive, which means "moving forward, advancing"? Using instruments of music in worship is not advancing—any more than Jeroboam setting up golden calves. Some may have called Jeroboam progressive, broad-minded, and forward thinking when he let anyone from any of the tribes be a priest. He probably was hailed as one who thinks outside of the box when he exchanged Jerusalem for Dan and Bethel. He shed himself of his inflexible rigidity, all right. But he made Israel sin a great sin (2 Kings 17:21), for which they were eventually taken to captivity.

Did Solomon have a more irenic spirit when he "built a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab…and for Molech, the abomination of the people of Ammon" (1 Kings 11:7)? Was he politically correct when he burnt incense and sacrificed to the various gods of all his wives (v. 8). If this kind of progress was good, then why was the Lord angry with him (v. 9)?

The point is: Independent Christian churches have made no progress. They use instruments of music in their worship that God never authorized them to use. It is doubtful that they even try to defend it any more. Alan Highers soundly defeated Given O. Blakely in Missouri more than four decades ago; new attempts to find Scriptural authority have failed. Most have learned that they succeed better if they just ignore the issue.

Community and non-denominational churches only lack a denominational name; in doctrine they are the same as the denominations they no longer affiliate themselves with. They are basically Calvinistic and Baptist. They do not teach what Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost. They may say a word about repentance, but they do not baptize for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Primarily, they preach "faith only" and probably would add "once saved, always saved" to boot. A well-taught Christian could not meet with them.

Other Denominations

The article does mention that, when the doors of the church building are closed, some just quit attending. If another group is some distance away, and brethren have a health problem, one can understand the dilemma. Undoubtedly, some have begun watching worship on line. Some of these instances may be justified, but if it's just a matter of being inconvenient, everyone should remember that the design of the Lord's church is to be present with brethren—to encourage them and be encouraged by them (Heb. 10:25).

The reason we do not recommend the Christian Chronicle is that they do not appear to believe that Jesus established only one church which is subject unto Him (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 5:24). The reader can see what they believe by the way the columnist describes the subject matter. Cheryl Mann Bacon makes this statement twice. Both quotes are provided below; the emphasis belongs to your congenial editor.

About three-quarters had found another Church of Christ congregation after theirs closed, but the others fell into a few categories including those he listed: community / nondenominational churches, other denominations, a house church or online worship with a church of Christ in another city (5).

Clark said in his survey response that "about half the members went to another Church of Christ, and about half to other conservative denominations" (6).

First of all, notice that the writer of this news item capitalizes church of Christ. It is only properly capitalized when it is a specific title, such as South Seminole Church of Christ. Local congregations or the church universal is simply referred to as the church. Second, however, she uses the church as an adjective when she refers to "another Church of Christ congregation." She is using it in the sense of referring to a Lutheran or Baptist Church. Most of us would just say that they found another church of Christ to attend.

But the most glaring indication of her attitude is the mention of "other denominations" and "other conservative denominations." If this is not an admission that she thinks the church established by Jesus is a denomination, what is it? Had she said it only once, it might have been just the slip of a pen, but she did it twice, which shows that she means it just like it sounds. In her mind, the church is a denomination just as the Methodist and the Presbyterian Churches are.

Furthermore, it is likely that an editor read this article before it was printed, which means that at least some in the editorial staff—if not all of them—also believe that the Lord's church is a denomination. They certainly cannot be unaware that faithful brethren have always denied being a denomination—as far back as anyone can remember.

Many preachers once delivered messages with titles such as: "The Marks of a Denomination"; "Why the Church of Christ is Not a Denomination": "The Church of the New Testament," et al. But the Christian Chronicle believes the Lord's church is a denomination. If they do not believe that, then let them publish a statement saying that they disagree with their writer, Cheryl Mann Bacon. They have been digressive for a long time; will they come out now and defend Bacon's terminology and the implications thereof? This article will be sent to them, and we will see if a response is forthcoming.

Doctrinal Squabbles and Worship Preferences

Bacon also reports on the fact that some members are restless and have visited or moved their membership to other congregations in an area. She attributes this action to "doctrinal squabbles and worship preferences." This description leaves the reader to imagine everything from "I liked the old songbook better" to "I cannot abide replacing gospel preaching with dramas." The first of these is frivolous, but the second one is legitimate. Lacking an example causes us to wonder what "worship preferences" actually means.

What is a doctrinal squabble? If it is a matter of doctrine, then why is it berated as a squabble? We read, for example, that the three thousand baptized on the Day of Pentecost "continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine" (Acts 2:42). Did they squabble over what they were taught? No. If it was New Testament teaching, then they were to uphold it and practice it. Brethren may have had personal squabbles: Paul and Barnabas did, and it is thought that Euodia and Syntyche did (Acts 15:39; Phil. 4:2), but where is a doctrinal squabble?

Was Paul having "a squabble" with Hymenaeus and Alexander when he delivered them to Satan (1 Tim. 1:18-20)? Was he squabbling with Hymenaeus and Philetus when he said that they were overthrowing the faith of some, insisting that the resurrection was already past (2 Tim. 2:16-18)? Was he squabbling again when he spoke of those "whose mouths must be stopped" because they were subverting whole households (Titus 1:11)? Did Peter write that squabblers would "secretly bring in destructive heresies" (2 Peter 2:1)?

Liberals enjoy trying to minimize doctrinal truth. We have numerous warnings in the New Testament against those who would bend and distort the truth (2 Peter 3:16). They also tend to trivialize various matters as actually being unimportant by characterizing them as just squabbles. If it relates to the teaching of the New Testament, it is not frivolous.

While it is the case that some have tried to make matters of option matters of doctrine, it is also the case that some have taken matters of doctrine and tried to make them optional. It is also true that conservative churches can eventually die out and close—especially if they have ignored the charge to be evangelistic. But it is equally clear that some churches have failed for a lack of sound Biblical teaching.