Adapt or Die

“I’d rather we die the way we are than change one thing and survive.” This is an actual quote from a church member in a dying church, but it is the sentiment of many church members who find their congregation on the precipice of closure. Do not be mistaken. However, this mentality often gets churches in hospice care in the first place. A church that is declining can be declining for many reasons, but those churches that try to do business “the way they’ve always done it,” while membership involvement wanes and overall membership declines will be the churches that die blaming everyone else.

A church that once had 300 members and a board structure reflecting that membership could have an Official Board, Board of Missions, Board of Evangelism, Board of Christian Education, Flower Committee, Finance Committee, Sunday School Board, Men’s Ministry Board, Women’s Ministry Board, Youth Board, Children’s Committee, Deacon Board, Elder Board, and probably a Board on Board that tracks all the boards.

A church of 300 could find it challenging to fill all those board seats, but a church that is now 45 would find it overwhelming and impossible. As someone who has studied church health over the last several years I have found that churches willing to adapt their leadership structures will more readily evaluate their culture, values, and practices. They become more nimble and therefore adapt more easily. More often than not these churches not only survive but thrive.

The Advent Christian Denomination’s history was most recently recounted by Tom Loghry here and he writes about our current structural issues here. Tom and I are good friends who discuss church and denominational life regularly. I won’t steal his thunder with all his facts and figures, you’ll have to attend the panel he’ll be sitting on at Triennial for those alarming facts. However, I will point out that our denomination is in sharp decline. The most recent Witness Article reveals that the majority of our churches are under 40 attendees, 30%+ under 20, and most of our pastors over 60. 

I am grateful that so many pastors in their 60s are willing to continue serving in their local church roles. I am in awe of their selflessness in serving on multiple denominational boards and committees including their Conferences, Region, Camps, and more. At some point, however, we need to evaluate whether serving in so many roles is healthy for the individual and the denomination. 

In the local church when I find one person no matter the age serving on multiple boards and committees, I never find that person to be serving in those capacities at 100% effectiveness. Something gives by not receiving the full attention required of the position. The same could be said for serving on multiple boards within our denomination. As the vast majority of denominational boards are served by Pastors, those pastors likely serve on multiple boards within their church as well. It is not a question of whether these Pastors' churches suffer from their pastor’s time being overtaxed, but how much are they suffering? Could our local churches be healthier if our Pastors weren’t serving on so many committees? Could those boards and committees be healthier if Pastors weren’t serving on so many other boards and committees? I suggest the answer is yes.

We do not need to agree on how to restructure to begin the process. We do need to agree that we need to restructure and adapt to our changing landscape. Why? The data Tom pulls paints that picture quite clearly. Stories from other pastors who feel pulled in too many directions color that picture. The fact that almost every board in our denomination has members who run unopposed most of the time fills in the detail of that picture.

In the 1990s the United States Army configured its units by combat type. You’d have Brigades (3-5 Battions) of Mechanized Infantry, which were entirely Infantry. When they’d deploy, attachments would accompany them for support such as medical, intelligence, artillery, communications, engineers, etc. In the 2000s our Army began fighting a different style of war so we adapted the structures to include Brigade Combat Teams (BCT), which include 3-5 Battalions. When I served in the 173rd Airborne Battalion, we had 2 Infantry Battalions, 1 Cavalry Battalion, 1 Artillery Battalion, a Support Battalion, and a Special Troops Battalion (STB). The STB included Intelligence, Engineer Company, Medical Companies, and smaller units of specialized Soldiers. This BCT could more readily fight in a new combat style to achieve the same mission–to defeat her nation’s enemies.

If the United States Army is willing to adapt to the changing landscape to become more effective, why can’t the Advent Christian Denomination? We can adapt or die.