Why Conservative Churches Are Growing
Vol. XIII, No. 2, February 2000
Introduction: Following are quotes from Dean M. Kelley, Why Conservative Churches Are Growing, Mercer University Press, 1987. This is a thoughtful book and well worth your careful reading. As you read the paragraphs below, ask yourself whether they apply to your church and, if so, what should be done about it. However, if action is called for, remember that a lot of preparatory education may be necessary until the body understands the need for change. Bold print has been added. TCP
It happened in the Wesleyan revival, which made of former beggars and roustabouts such honest and self-respecting citizens that their neighbors took to entrusting to them the valuables they didn't trust themselves not to squander! Unfortunately, the virtues of Wesley's followers also helped them to prosper, and as they ascended in the esteem of their neighbors they tended to place their religious commitments in perspective with other concerns, which took on increasing importance. John Wesley, the founder of the movement, has summed up this process in what might be called Wesley's Law. "Wherever riches have increased, the essence of religion has decreased in the same proportion. Therefore, I do not, see how it is possible, in the nature of things, for any revival of religion to continue long. For religion must necessarily produce both industry and frugality, and these cannot but produce riches. But as riches increase, so will pride, anger, and love of the world in all its, branches. . . . Is there no way to prevent this -- this continual decay of pure religion?"(2)
This well describes the mechanism by which the level of demand is lowered, the inner conviction of religious meaning ebbs away, and its institutions decline. The question this study asks is Wesley's question: Is there no way to prevent this decay of pure religion? p. 55
2. Quoted in Weber, op. cit., p. 175 (emphasis added).
... Franklin H. Littell has frequently noted ... in the history of churches in the United States(3) [they] ... progressively relaxed the standards of membership for those coming in from outside ... In order to build up mass memberships, they have taken in many new members whose preparation was sketchy at best. Such members often had only the vaguest notion of what the church they were joining believed or required (which often was not a great deal), and perhaps thought it rather similar in general to their own ideas and attitudes, not that it made any difference (and in fact it didn't).
As a result, Littell observes, the churches became filled with baptized pagans, who soon far outnumbered those who had gained and kept some understanding of the obligations of discipleship. The churches then became unable to enforce any such obligations. The newly baptized might have taken umbrage to be told that there are some ways of speaking, thinking, or acting which are not consistent with being a Christian, and that one might have to choose between them. Consequently, for lack of information to the contrary, many church members enjoy the impression that whatever they are accustomed to believe, say, or do is somehow Christian since they are, after all, Christians. The problem of propagation, then, is how to put content into conversion-to train new members in the distinctive ideas, attitudes, actions, and discipline of the movement. Some churches are better at this than others, but in the best of them there is still a certain amount of slippage. p. 104
3. Cf. The Origins of Sectarian Protestantism (New York: Macmillan Co., 1964) and From State Church to Pluralism (New York: Doubleday, 1962).
Many there are, apparently, who confuse a church with a lodge or social club (and most lodges and social clubs are more particular about whom they admit than some churches are). By admitting new members for the pleasure of their company and the welcome addition of their contributions, the church is reduced to the condition of a lodge or social club which has little to bind its members together except fellowship — and a fellowship all too easily disrupted by disagreement or difficulty. This clubbiness of churches has come about because members deem it churlish to refuse any of their friends admittance, thus confusing friendship with the qualifications for membership that should apply in any seriously purposive group, particularly a religious group. Such standards are considered ungracious when they are not understood and appreciated as the necessary effectuations of serious purpose. pp. 123-4
The organizations of religion are repositories of the meanings and values that are most ultimate and intimate for their members. They are responsible for treasuring and enhancing, embodying and transmitting the ideals and qualities that earlier generations have found good. As such, they tend to be concerned more with conserving the tried and true than with exploring or experimenting with the new. Perhaps that is not the way some would wish religious groups to be, especially if their occupational lines are cast in the churches or synagogues and they are personally interested in bringing about alterations in society. They will find themselves surrounded by singularly refractory material for their purpose, and may curse the material for being what it is rather than what they think it should be.
The conserving tendency of religious organizations, however, is basically a healthy and valuable trait, which gives coherence and continuity to human society. If there is fault to be found with it, it lies in the fact that religious bodies often uncritically conserve whole patterns of the immediate past rather than preserving selectively the few great goods distilled from many generations. Thus many a prophet is merely trying to call or recall hearers to the ancient teachings of the faith, but is persecuted for neglecting or rejecting the more familiar and lesser attachments of a generation ago. Many hearers regrettably identify the experiences of their childhood as the eternal good which the religious group is expected to conserve rather than more profound goods from the more distant past. So the religious organization may err, not in being too conservative, but in being not conservative enough! p. 147-8
Suppose a pastor or a lay person in one of the ecumenical denominations wants to strengthen the congregation. How would one go about it? ... To begin with, one might try to put into effect the "Minimal Maxims of Seriousness" listed on p. 121. It will do not harm to review them concisely here.
1. Those who are serious about their faith do not confuse it with other beliefs, loyalties, or practices, or mingle them together indiscriminately, or pretend they are alike, of equal merit, or mutually compatible if they are not.
2. Those who are serious about their faith make high demands of those admitted to the organization that bears the faith, and they do not include or allow to continue within it those who are not fully committed to it.
3. Those who are serious about their faith do not consent to, encourage, or indulge any violations of its standards of belief or behavior by its professed adherents.
4. Those who are serious about their faith do not keep silent about it, apologize for it, or let it be treated as though it made no difference, or should make no difference, in their behavior or their relationships with others.
In the same chapter ... the ways in which Anabaptists and Wesleyans tried to put such seriousness into effect were summarized, and might be generalized as follows:
a. Be in no haste to admit members.
b. Test the readiness and preparation of would-be members.
c. Require continuing faithfulness.
d. Bear one another up in small groups.
e. Do not yield control to outsiders, nor seek to accommodate to their expectations. p. 176