Quote of the Day
Many declining churches don’t adapt. Its leaders don’t demand change, and its members don’t pursue it until it’s too late. Doblmeier, an award-winning filmmaker who has been making documentaries about faith for decades, thinks he knows why.
The same reason many go to church is the same reason why many churches struggle to survive: the allure of the familiar.
“Church is the place you go to because you feel as though it’s not changing,” he says. “People look forward to the same rhythms, prayers and rituals that they’re so used to … This is the one place where they can have comfort and stability.”
John Blake
October 1, 2026
A ‘tsunami’ of church closings is poised to remake America
Emphasis added.
While I can accept the emphasized sentence may be true, I still find it very odd. Admittedly, as an atheist, I am not in a good position to pass some sort of judgement on the reasons for going to church. But I would have thought the primary reason people would go to church would be include some of the items from this list:
- Learn more about the appropriate means of worship
- Learn the teaching of the Bible
- Reinforcement of Christian standards of behavior
- Application of Biblical teachings to modern life
- Social interaction with people of similar beliefs
- Introduction of their children to the teachings of the church
I didn’t find any of those types of things mentioned in the story. Perhaps the author intentionally avoided those topics. But I find it hard to believe the people interviewed did not mention some of those things as important reasons for the continuation of church services.
<shrug>
In many ways the fading of Christian beliefs in America will be sad for me. The poorly maintained and empty churches near where I grew up induce sadness. I remember the social events held there. Seeing the empty and dying buildings I am reminded of all the adults who had an influence in my life who are almost all dead as well.
Why am I not happy with the fading of religious belief? I regard it as delusional, but mostly a useful delusion. Just one example: I know people with severe drug and alcohol problems who found church attendance and belief in a god a great help in remaining sobor. That alone has tremendous value.
Many of the rules of behavior don’t make sense to me, but as I frequently say about government rules, “It doesn’t have to make sense, it is just a rule.” And rules have a place in social life. They are a social lubricant. And it is far better to have social rules from hundreds of different types social groups than have governments take up the slack in that same domain.
I find it interesting that he starts out by stating that most *declining* churches *don’t* adapt. And then claims that the reason most people go to church is because of the familiar “vibe” they find there. In my opinion, if they weren’t adapting, they would be maintaining the status quo, and not moving away from the familiar.
My theory is that the declining churches are exactly as it states in scripture… they are “falling away”, *because* they are “adapting” – changing to suit the culture of the day, rather than teaching what the scriptures say – about right and wrong, about marriage, about justice, about love, etc… And while they don’t necessarily teach outright behaviors that are contrary to scripture, they certainly do condone it and don’t condemn it, as scripture calls for.
They teach that Christ was a “meek” man – yet they have redefined what it means to be meek – turning it into being a weak person. This is the same Christ that turned over the tables of the money changers in the temple, made a whip out of material he found at the site and began to whip those very same people. He called the religious leaders of his day, “White washed Sepulchers.” or white washes tombs. Find me a preacher today (or a congregant for that matter) that would do the same?
Just my thoughts on it.
Beat me to it. Churches have adapted to the zeitgeist and not in a positive way. The “mainstream” Protestant denominations are the worst, followed closely by the Catholics. The latter seems to be in a bit of an uptick lately perhaps because of the Latin mass dissidents. I don’t think that will last though. Francis appointed enough cardinals to institutionalize the commie pope syndrome and sooner or later the traditionalists will have had enough or they will be cast out by the hierarchy.
The article is a self-licking ice cream cone.
Reverend Melissa Wagner.
The United Methodist Church (one of the most Woke denominations).
Their choice of “sympathetic subject” answered the very question they were asking.
Christians didn’t abandon church, the established churches abandoned Christianity.
Women should not be in positions of leadership over men in a spiritual setting. Homosexual activity is a sin and should be condemned. People unrepentantly engaging in sinful activities should not be permitted to hold any type of spiritual leadership role. I could go on.
You can disagree with the tenets of Christianity all you want, but if you claim to be a Christian, those are the tenets, deal with it or don’t be a Christian.
What those “woke” denominations did was, in an attempt to “adapt” in order to attract a “more modern” crowd, is stop being Christian. When they stopped being Christian, Christians stopped going. The “more modern” crowd weren’t interested in attending a dusty, musty mausoleum of a church that had an organ and a choir, they wanted a show. Entertainment. Excitement. So the younger, “more modern” crowd gravitated toward the megachurches with big stages and pyrotechnics and live bands and coffee and gift shops in the lobby. Essentially they gravitated toward the showmanship.
Christians who believed in the tenets of Christianity, but also believed that Church was about worshipping God, not enjoying a concert and motivational speech were left with nowhere to turn.
In my case, I do my worshipping on my own, often in the nature that God provided us, or with a few like minded fellows. We don’t want or need the elaborate shows or multi-millionaire charismatic motivational speakers and we won’t tolerate being called “misogynist, homophobic, haters” for simply believing in and practicing the well-established, clearly stated tenets of our religion.
So…the established churches die. They won’t be missed by Christians. They weren’t Christian churches any more anyway.
Well said.
Many people (like our esteemed host) want to enjoy the benefits of living in a high-trust Christian culture, without the restrictions of actually abiding by the Christian faith that makes it possible. They miss “how things were,” but like Chesterton’s fence, they don’t understand what/why/how things changed, because they don’t understand what was properly.
When society is visibly starting to fall apart as people fall away from faith, some of us start returning to church (like myself) because the message hasn’t changed, and it observably works better than all the current alternatives. While the form of worship might change a bit (swapping out old hymns or Gregorian chants for more modern styles with the same message), a church that stays on message from the Bible will continue to thrive. Catholic Churches started seeing falling enrollment when they moved away from the Latin Mass, for example.
It’s the woke churches that are failing, though I suspect that no small number of those are deliberate, via infiltration and subversion in order to loot them for prime properties, or out of hatred for Christianity. Bible-focused churches like mine are thriving, female-led woke churches that fly gay pride flags are closing.
People start going to church for many reasons. The world around them is going insane, and they are looking for a rock of stability. They have an encounter they see as obviously divine intervention or evil and go seeking understanding. Because the Bible is a long and complex book, and they are seeking deeper understanding than a simple read-through on their own can give. In a sea of immorality and confusion and lies they are seeking a consistently moral and honest message. There are variations and combinations of these of course, and more. Each person has their own reasons. The reasons you offered as reasonable are absolutely on the list.
Just like reading the Constitution and BoR takes some study to see how things apply to the world’s current situation and technology, same too with the word of God and the Bible.
Bear in mind, the last thing the media would want to do is give an accurate and accurate picture of society and the Church today. The MSM wants to keep people afraid, confused, and desperate, as they serve the rulers of this world, the Master of Lies. So expecting honest reporting on faith by the MSM is not rational.
Please don’t claim to know you know my motives.
Faith does not enable anything other than believe in falsehoods.
OK, not you, but many like you. Though how my statement was wrong escapes me, as you clearly reject living by Christian morals, yet also clearly appreciate living among the fruits of a Christian culture.
Your faith in atheism is interesting.
Thank you for demonstrating Chesterton’s fence.
You are putting either your ignorance or your delusions on display again. I would put deliberately lying extremely low on the possibilities, but you could be lying to yourself in this instance.
A high trust society does not depend on having a Christian culture. Both Japanese society and nudist communities are high trust as well. They achieve that without any requirement of Christian beliefs.
Either your definitions of faith and/or atheist are different from mine. My definition of atheist is very simple and obvious. A theist is one who believes in the existence god(s). Just as atypical, asymmetrical, and aseptic mean without being typical, symmetrical or bacteria an atheist is someone without a belief in god(s). Faith tends to be much more varied and difficult, so what is your definition of “faith” and how can that possibly be a characteristic of an atheist?
The first “out” atheist in Congress was Pete Stark. He was a primary sponsor of the 1994 AWB and every gun control measure that was considered during his long Congressional tenure. He also was a prime sponsor of Obamacare. To his credit, he didn’t much like other atheists, thinking them too doctrinaire.
While high-trust functionality where people around the world would want to live if they had to move doesn’t absolutely require Christianity, there is a high correlation, and I find it amusing that the two counter-examples you gave both aggressively police their own areas to enforce the norms and eject anyone who isn’t on the same cultural page, something Christian countries don’t do well at all, because God will allow you to choose poorly (and suffer accordingly). I note that you are leaving the increasingly dysfunctional Seattle area, reportedly the most un-churched large city in America, for very functional rural Idaho, a place only slightly less notorious for its Christian flavor than Utah.
Atheism require faith in your belief in the statement “there is no God.” I spend most of my life as an agnostic, “I don’t know if there is one or not, because I don’t know enough or have not experienced enough to know for sure one way or the other.” Being certain of something like that in the face of all those who believe and their experiences is an act of faith, but not of a religious type. Sort of like the true-believer types who favor gun -control, or an engineer who has done the calculations and has a very high degree of confidence / faith the bridge will hold the weight or the circuit will function as expected.
I understand where you are coming from, as I spent most of my life adjacent to that place. But when a person talks to enough people who have experiences that “normal physics” can’t explain, and see enough evil that “normal human weakness and corruption” can’t explain, and the fact that we are here in spite of evolution through natural selection has been shown to be mathematically impossible in the time science says we’ve been here, eventually a person can start to believe the other way. If evil exists, then so must God, much as “dark” is the absence of “light.”
Some of the problem is this is a complex and nuanced topic that takes a LOT of words to be clear and not cut too many corners. We need to get together to talk face-to-face more often.
You apparently did not notice I said the churches in the area where I grew up were empty. Twenty years ago, I knew one couple who attended church regularly. I know they still live in the area, but I don’t know they still attend church or not. The area still has an extremely low crime rate. I think there was one car was stolen in the last 50 years. Everyone (that I know of) leaves the doors unlocked and keys in their tractors, trucks, and pickups. Some house may be locked at night.
Where did someone say, “There is no god”?
Confidence and faith are two very different things. The confidence that two plus two equals four is much different “knowing” through faith that the answer is five. This is getting directly into Orwell’s Nineteen Eight-Four territory. Does prayer yield high crop yields, eliminate the need to vaccinate your cattle, eliminate bacterial infections, or heal broken bones in your livestock, or children? With math and some calculations, I can confidently prove fertilizer improves crop yields, vaccinated cattle are healthier, antibiotics eliminate infections, and mechanically setting a broken bone all yield better results than faith and prayer.
I think you are mixing up “origin of life” with “evolution.” Those are two very different things.
Your “logic” is “interesting”. So, is the reverse true as well, “If there exists God there must be evil?” Or are you mixing up “good” and “God”. But even claiming “good” exists there must be “evil” is an invalid assertion. Just as having no money is different from having money and having debt. Or how about, if God is in heaven does that mean evil must be in heaven as well?
Are you saying Christian countries don’t have civil wars and get along just fine with other Christian countries? Perhaps you should look into the history of Catholic and Protestant conflicts.
My gut feel is that religion is more frequently the source of conflict than the remedy for it.
Faith is useless in the puruit of truth, but it is actually quite powerful:
I define faith as the absence of doubt.
When reason has reached diminishing returns, it can result in “analysis paralysis”, or when the time to reason has run out, such as in defensive combat, faith leaves you in immediate, unreserved action. It is not available to offense, as they have options which defense does not have, so there is always some doubt.
I grew up with a choir director mother in a Presbyterian church in Yakima. By the time I was 11 or 12 I’d realized the cosmology was absurd, but I still enjoyed the community and the place and the sense of stability. It was a place with lots of old people that I would not have had any interaction with otherwise, and I still have fond memories of the experience even though at the time I was appalled that they would still deeply believe the writings of a bunch of 3rd century goat herders. Somewhere in the early 70s they started an early morning service devoted to “more modern/youth oriented” service that had pop music and no choir or organ, and it was remarkable how much it divided people. It was the beginning of the end.
To me, as someone stridently anti-religion, churches still can be of enormous value. Cultivating a sense of fellowship, of community, of bringing together people young and old, of carrying on old traditions (albeit without the cosmology attached), and being a place of meditation and “spiritual contemplation” are all hugely needed in a functioning society.
If only they could let go of the cosmology. But instead they insist that not only their god, but their interpretation of what this or that group of people have written about their god, is “truth” and everything else is “lies.” That tension between “we love everybody and want broad fellowship” and “if you don’t agree with us you’re stupid/a liar/evil” isn’t sustainable, and the current batch of religions will dissolve just as the hundreds that came before them did. The question now is whether society can produce a new forum for fellowship and meditation to take its place.
“I still have fond memories of the experience even though at the time I was appalled that they would still deeply believe the writings of a bunch of 3rd century goat herders.”
We have excellent (by non-religious historical standards) evidence of the writings of the New Testament being written during the latter half of the first century (which makes sense when you realize that Jesus’ birth was supposed to be the zero year, so he died in approximately 32 AD).
Feel free to disbelieve, but please do so factually.
“That tension between “we love everybody and want broad fellowship” and “if you don’t agree with us you’re stupid/a liar/evil” isn’t sustainable”
Those are not contradictory positions. Also, if you include “deceived” on your list (which would be a more accurate claim, theologically speaking, though the average person doesn’t put enough thought into it), I think even your idea of “tension” goes away.
“Cultivating a sense of fellowship, of community, of bringing together people young and old, of carrying on old traditions (albeit without the cosmology attached), and being a place of meditation and “spiritual contemplation” are all hugely needed in a functioning society.”
Without something deeper to hold it together, you don’t get that. Some form of faith is required.
Want to disagree? Give a counter example that lasted past human memory of the founders that matches what you want and wasn’t built on faith.
“By the time I was 11 or 12 I’d realized the cosmology was absurd”
With a very few exceptions, the people I’ve heard that from (especially those who came to that conclusion young like you are talking about) have an extremely poor understanding of the actual cosmology of Christianity.
“Give a counter example that lasted past human memory of the founders that matches what you want and wasn’t built on faith”
China, for several thousand years. The Stoics. Most Buddhist cultures. There are lots of examples.
“an extremely poor understanding of the actual cosmology of Christianity.”
The “actual cosmology” differs slightly by sect, but pretty much across the board the assertion (assuming you’re following the bible…which leaves out sects like the Gnostics) is that a deity of some sort created the universe, with earth at its center. Are you disagreeing with that?
The Bible does teach that God created the heavens and the earth but you assertion that biblical cosmology places earth at the center of the universe is inaccurate. Some Christians may believe that, but if so, it’s not based on scripture but on inference or assumption.
“China, for several thousand years.”
An effective tyranny is a not what either of us was talking about.
Buddism is a religion, which is rather specifically what you are saying is unneeded.
The Stoics is the only one of those that is even close. In fact, it’s a fairly decent example… and it’s been gone for thousands of years.
I think my point is pretty well made.
“a deity of some sort created the universe, with earth at its center.”
That’s not a *physical* claim. The physical location of Earth to the rest of the universe is irrelevant.
So, your big complaint is that Christianity claims Earth is the physical center of the universe? That’s your problem with the cosmology?
And it’s… you know, *wrong*, just like I said.
Well I’m no expert on China, but my understanding of its history doesn’t include “effective tyranny.” Except for the communists.
Buddhism isn’t a religion, though it gets lumped in with other religions because of the philosophy part. It doesn’t have a notion of a deity in which you have to have faith, as religions do.
Ok let’s ignore the Earth at the center part (though Genesis seems to make it pretty clear it is, and pretty much the entire Bible for that matter). It’s the “deity created the universe” part that’s the core of the assertion by Christians wrt cosmology. That’s the physical claim. For which there is no scientific evidence, thus the term “faith.”
“Well I’m no expert on China”
Clearly not, and you should have stopped there.
Literally, China was ruled by an “emperor” from the time of the unification of the warring states until the end of WWI. All political power (theoretically, of course – the reality of it varied some over time) resided in this one guy. A “tyrant” in the most basic form.
And they certainly treated the common people in the manner one would expect from tyrants.
“Buddhism isn’t a religion”
And clearly, you’re no expert on Buddhism, either.
Buddhism teaches that people reincarnate time after time after they die, and the goal is to get good enough that you can escape the reincarnation cycle.
Sorry if that inconvenient for the things you want to believe, but it’s clearly, CLEARLY a “religion” by every definition I’ve ever seen.
“That’s the physical claim. For which there is no scientific evidence, thus the term “faith.””
Yes, certainly.
As opposed to science, which has literally no explanation for existence, and almost certainly never will, barring time travel (see the highly-selectively-applied “Popper doctrine”). Anything about “the beginning of the universe” other than “we have no idea” is “faith”, and some of the claims made about it are actually quite a bit sillier than “some powerful being outside of physical reality created it”.
My favorite such claim is that the Big Bang was caused by a “false vacuum”, which was itself caused by “variations in the value of zero”. Because, you know, mathematical concepts (like “zero”) vary over time, right?
(And just to jump in before you go there, no, that is not required by the Big Bang theory, but yes, it has been claimed as one possible cause and received rather serious attention.)
“Cosmology” isn’t your issue with Christianity and is a rather poor excuse. It’s the existence of God – the issue of cosmology *logically follows from there*, one way or the other.
Now, I’m not chastising you on that issue (whether you believe God exists), just the lack of honesty on the issue.
“All political power (theoretically, of course – the reality of it varied some over time) resided in this one guy. A “tyrant” in the most basic form.”
So all monarchies are run by tyrants? If not, your point is invalid.
“Buddhism teaches that people reincarnate time after time after they die, and the goal is to get good enough that you can escape the reincarnation cycle.”
It’s true that those teachings are part of the system, but Buddhism doesn’t flow from a cosmology, it is firstly a philosophy and mindfulness practice. More to the point, it’s notion of “creation” is exactly the opposite of the god religions: it rejects the notion of creation at all, and specifically of a deity doing the creating, and simply accepts the existence of nature. Do you want to get into a discussion of Niyama?
“Cosmology” isn’t your issue with Christianity and is a rather poor excuse. It’s the existence of God”
I don’t think I understand your point. You’re certainly correct that I take issue with the assertion that the universe contains a god, and was created by same. I would call discussion of that structure cosmology, but maybe we’re using different definitions.
“So all monarchies are run by tyrants?”
The ones where there is literally no check on the monarch’s power? Where all political power is invested in that one person? Yes. Pretty basic definition – “An absolute ruler who governs without restrictions”
That was the officially the Chinese emperors – the “mandate of heaven” and all that. (De facto, it waxed and waned some, of course, but considering the things they instituted, those limits were pretty dang minimal.)
Buddhism again: reject the rest of the world’s definition of “religion” and substitute your own. Very nice. The rest of us will simply ignore that and move on because we are nice.
“You’re certainly correct that I take issue with the assertion that the universe contains a god, and was created by same”
Showing once again that you do not understand the cosmology you are referring to. By the bog-standard Christian view, the universe does not “contain God” – he exists before, after, and outside of it. The universe would be his creation. “Cosmology” would thus come after the existence (or lack thereof) of God, hence why I said what I said.
Even if you want to include “the existence of God” in cosmology, it is at best dissembling to hide behind “cosmology” when there is a singular point of failure much, MUCH more specific (and more easily understood by almost any audience).
I’m using this definition of “cosmology”: Cosmology is the scientific study of the universe as a whole—its origin, development, structure, history, and future. It brings together astronomy and physics to understand the observable universe and how it has changed over time. (Britannica)
So the assertions that a god does or does not exist, did or did not create the universe, etc., are all considered within the question of cosmology.
But maybe let’s not argue semantics, the basic question is “What is the nature of reality?” In your view reality was created by a god (or is a god, or…) In my view it was not, and I believe that for the same reasons I don’t believe the Norse myths, or the Egyptian myths, or the Aztec myths, or any of the other 3000 that humanity has created in the past 10000 years.
I do think we’re way off the path though. Weren’t we arguing about whether religion was necessary for the existence of a civilized society?
In Rolf’s case it was even narrower than that. It was Christianity which was required. One has to wonder about all the societies before 2000 years ago and all the societies since then that did not hear the “good news” of their salvation until the missionaries told them about it. Were all these societies improved by conversion to Christianity?
“I do think we’re way off the path though. Weren’t we arguing about whether religion was necessary for the existence of a civilized society?”
OK, back to this (from you):
“Cultivating a sense of fellowship, of community, of bringing together people young and old, of carrying on old traditions (albeit without the cosmology attached), and being a place of meditation and “spiritual contemplation” are all hugely needed in a functioning society.”
To which I responded:
“Without something deeper to hold it together, you don’t get that. Some form of faith is required.”
Even by your very odd definition of religion that leaves out Buddhism, Buddhism would still what I was talking about.
In fact, even the Stoics would be a bare step away from what I was talking about – what is needed is a commitment to something deeper than just “getting through” or “having things be nice” or some such.
The Stoics had a very specific goal – “to live a well-reasoned life” and had some specific virtues that they taught as the things that led to that. By the loosest definition (as given by SCOTUS, actually), that would fill the slot of “religion” in their life (but then, arguably, so does communism, so maybe that’s not the best example…).
The point being: as best I can tell, the examples we have of any kind of long term organizations you were talking about that enable “civilized society” all have some OTHER thing as the goal, something deeper, with “civilized society” being a nice byproduct. The vast majority of examples we have of those organizations would be something that rather specifically fits the definition of “religion” or at least very, VERY close to it.
Being indigenous and believing in a force beyond myself.., the Creator; and Jewish; understanding the difference between science and religion as a physician, a combat veteran and a retired police officer leads in many directions.
The culture of adherence to doing what is right in terms of personal and societal needs is what makes a society functional and survivable.
I know many atheists who are good people, but as Joe notes, a lot of that morality came from faiths.
Re: “It doesn’t have to make sense, it is just a rule.”
My Property law Professor once shouted in class,” Reason? Hell, there is no reason! It’s just the Law!.