Church Revitalization: Where Do We Start?

Several months ago, I was asked by a friend to teach a systematic theology class at the ministry training school his church runs. Just before Easter, we started into a unit on ecclesiology, the doctrines of the church, and of course, a significant portion of any such discussion must address the matter of the church’s mission. During our discussion today, I shared a Thom Rainer statistic that an estimated 80% of churches across North America are in need of revitalization. That is, eight of every ten churches have neglected one or more portion of the mission of the Church to the point that they are experiencing significant dysfunction or even at risk of closing altogether.

Following the discussion, one of my students asked this provocative question: “If 80% of churches are in need of revitalization, what are some things we are doing to see this happen?” What a tremendous question! I want to address it in two parts. First, what are we actually doing to address this need for revitalization? And second, what should we be doing?

What are we actually doing to address the need for revitalization?

Fortunately, there is good news here. In 1961, missiologist Donald McGavran began what became known as the church growth movement. Think what you will of what this movement became, the original premise was sound: McGavran aimed to help churches become more effective in evangelism. This was accomplished by studying the ministry context and adapting methodologies accordingly, much as Paul did in Athens (Acts 17) and 1 Corinthians 9. The result was the advent of the megachurch and a breath of fresh air in countless smaller congregations.

Unfortunately, over the course of a generation, the methods of the church growth movement became largely fixed and rigid, but the culture did not. In particular, one of McGavran’s central tenets, the homogenous growth principle, became outmoded as communities diversified, and the values of Millennials shifted. Moreover, the church growth mantra of “do this, this, and this, and your church will grow” failed to yield significant or lasting growth for a multitude of churches, and its myopic obsession with statistics left many with a sour taste. Thus, but the 1990s, the influence of the church growth movement waned.

So was born the church health movement which, under the tutelage of successful pastors such as Rick Warren and Bill Hybles, promised a more wholistic approach. Resources such as Christian Schwartz’s Natural Church Development assessed the vitality of a church based on a constellation of characteristics ranging from leadership style to interpersonal relationships. This internal focus was in some ways a needed correction from the exclusively outward focus of the church growth movement, but as is often the case, the pendulum may have swung too far.

In the mid-2000s, then, the missional movement began to take shape. Missional voices such as Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch, and Ed Stetzer called the church to return to the incarnational ways of Jesus, who thoroughly embedded himself in the culture of his day and focused on a more relational approach to evangelism and ministry in general. Subscribers to the missional movement embrace the underlying principles common to both church growth and church health, and they recognize that each congregation must apply those principles in an entirely unique context.

In the early years of the missional movement, practitioners seemed to condescend existing churches. Thus, there was a trend of leaving the established church and launching new congregations and communities, but more recently, voices like Thom Rainer, William Henard, Tony Morgan, Karl Vaters, Josh Hunt, Harry Reeder, and David Swavely have kindled a new interest in helping existing congregations apply the concepts of the missional movement to their own context.

We, then, are living in a sort of sweet spot for church revitalization as a new generation of tools and resources are synthesizing the best of both church growth and church health. Eighteen years ago, when I came to our church, there were precious few resources for revitalizing a church, but now, it seems there is an endless stream of books and podcasts, a growing number of consultants are eager to help, and there are even degree programs at Bible colleges and seminaries. Moreover, denominations and their various judicatories have begun to see the value of revitalizing existing churches, and they have begun to invest in various ways.

What should we be doing?

There is, however, more to be done. Namely, I would like to suggest three things that we need to be working on.

First, we must more clearly define revitalization. When I arrived at the church where I lead, it had been in a spiraling decline for 45 years. It took several years to get control and right the proverbial plane, and we are still working to build momentum. Contrast that to my friend’s church, which was growing slowly but steadily until just the last few years. When his church brought in a consultant to help them refocus and retool, they saw immediate and substantial growth. Both are revitalizing churches, but the differences between the situations are profound. The problem is that the vague definition of church revitalization leads many to have similar expectations of both congregations. By more clearly defining church revitalization, we may provide a more precise understanding of the support a congregation may need and how long its revitalization may take. Thus, we will expect a church which has been in decline for nearly a half-century to experience renewal as quickly or as profoundly (at least in the short term) as the church which has only struggled for the last couple of years.

Second, training pastors and ministry students how to assess a church’s health and formulate strategies for revitalization should no longer be optional. When I was in Bible college, studying to be a pastor, no one even mentioned the possibility that I may lead a church in need of revitalization. Instead, we should assume that churches will need some degree of revitalization. Indeed, even churches that are presently healthy will eventually, inevitably require revitalization. We must train ministers to recognize the need and respond!

Finally, we must do a better job of celebrating even the small victories. Quite often, we celebrate the revitalizing churches that post huge gains in attendance. For our church when my wife and I first arrived, though, it was a big deal simply to meet our meager budget. Many revitalizing leaders, I fear, quit before revitalization comes because they fail to acknowledge and celebrate the tiny victories that build momentum for the much larger ones.

As a bonus, we should be much more proactive about developing support networks around revitalizing leaders. These pastors and laypeople need to be encouraged. They need a place to vent. They need people who can commiserate with them from time to time. They need people who will cheer when their churches take even the slightest baby step forward. And they need people who will prod them when they grow complacent. They do NOT need people who will compare attendance and offering statistics or building sizes. Rather, they need people who will listen, and sometimes advise.

There is much more to do, I am certain. But if we can start on these three things, we will make church revitalization profoundly easier.