A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.

This Week's Big Signal
The clearest signal this week is that church renewal leaders are being asked to keep mission central while denominational and congregational attention is easily pulled toward debate, structure, and fatigue. The SBC Annual Meeting in Orlando has generated predictable attention around officer elections, constitutional questions, and public controversy, but the most renewal-relevant reports were about churches sharing the gospel, baptizing new believers, measuring discipleship, engaging volunteers, and strengthening pastors for long-term ministry.

That matters because declining or plateaued churches rarely have excess attention. What leaders celebrate, measure, and discuss in the hallway often becomes the practical center of the church. Baptist Press reported more than 1,000 professions of faith through Crossover Orlando, 554 participating churches, nearly 4,000 volunteers, almost 20,000 people hearing the gospel, and a fifth straight year of SBC baptism increases. At the same time, Lifeway's State of Discipleship work shows pastors broadly affirm discipleship but often lack clear measurement and strategy.

One qualifier matters. Event fruit is real, but event fruit is not the same as durable congregational renewal. The follow-through question is whether churches can turn evangelistic moments into embodied discipleship, member ownership, peacemaking, serving, and sustainable pastoral leadership.

Trends for Leaders to Notice

1. Evangelism is still producing visible fruit when churches mobilize together. Crossover Orlando reported 1,077 professions of faith, nearly 20,000 gospel conversations or hearers, and participation from 554 churches across 15 states. NAMB also reported that SBC baptisms rose to 263,075 in 2025, up nearly 5 percent from 2024, marking five consecutive years of increase. Leaders should notice the small-church application in the Union Hill Baptist story: after years without baptisms, prayer and obedience preceded five baptisms in the first four months of 2026.
2. Discipleship is widely affirmed but weakly measured. Lifeway's State of Discipleship study, summarized by Baptist Messenger, surveyed more than 2,600 Protestant pastors and more than 2,100 churchgoers. Half of pastors say they are satisfied with discipleship and spiritual formation, but only 8 percent strongly agree; 71 percent believe discipleship can be measured, but only 30 percent say their church has specific methods for doing so. Leaders should notice the gap between conviction and operating system.
3. Engagement is becoming a better diagnostic than attendance alone. The Unstuck Group's recent podcast material is pressing churches to track movement on the discipleship path, not merely first-time guests or worship attendance. Their volunteer-engagement episode frames serving as a recurring bottleneck. Renewal teams should ask whether people are moving from attendance to belonging, from belonging to contribution, and from contribution to leadership.
4. The data around religious change still resists easy revival-or-collapse narratives. Ryan Burge's latest Graphs About Religion analysis cautions that survey instruments are giving mixed signals. He sees evidence that the long rise of the religiously unaffiliated may have plateaued, but he also warns that there is not a clean narrative, and weekly attendance measures look more stable than dramatic. Leaders should welcome openness without building strategy on hype.
5. Pastor sustainability is becoming a renewal issue, not a benefits side issue. GuideStone's annual meeting report highlighted a three-year Ministers Financial Foundations pilot with Kentucky and Tennessee Baptists, offering coaching, tools, and matching grants to younger ministers. Early results: 66 percent increased retirement contributions and 84 percent of participating churches increased contributions. Renewal work depends on pastors who can stay healthy enough to stay

What's Overhyped
The most overhyped narrative this week is that denominational debate is the main story of church renewal. Governance, doctrinal clarity, and institutional trust matter. But local churches are not renewed by winning online arguments or endlessly rehearsing convention drama. The more important question is whether churches are becoming more evangelistic, more discipling, more prayerful, more unified, and better led.
Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists

The greatest opportunity right now is helping churches convert attention into mission. The week offered a sharp contrast: public debate drew headlines, while reports on evangelism, baptism, discipleship measurement, volunteer engagement, and pastoral financial health pointed toward the actual work that strengthens churches.
For Southern Baptist and non-denominational leaders, the practical focus should be a simple renewal dashboard: gospel conversations, baptisms, discipleship pathway movement, volunteer engagement, new leader development, congregational peacemaking, and pastor sustainability. These are not glamorous metrics, but they tell leaders whether a church is becoming healthier or merely busier.

The strongest next step is to connect event-based energy to ordinary systems. After outreach, who follows up? After baptism, who disciples? After a new member joins, where do they serve? After a pastor shows strain, who notices early? Renewal gains staying power when churches stop treating mission, discipleship, leadership, and pastoral health as separate lanes and start treating them as one ecosystem.

The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit.

Sources

• Baptist Press, "More than 1,000 salvations through Crossover Orlando" - https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/more-than-1000-salvations-through-crossover-orlando/
• Baptist Press, "Jeff Iorg champions more giving to global missions; special needs ministry report" - https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/jeff-iorg-champions-more-giving-to-global-missions-special-needs-ministry-report/
• Baptist Press, "GuideStone initiative helps ministers start well, stay well, finish well, Dilbeck says" - https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/guidestone-initiative-helps-ministers-start-well-stay-well-finish-well-dilbeck-says/
• Baptist Press, "Mohler amendment scheduled for Wednesday consideration" - https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/news/mohler-amendment-scheduled-for-wednesday-consideration/
• Associated Press, "Southern Baptists elect new president who decried 'drift' in conservative denomination" - https://apnews.com/article/southern-baptist-convention-women-pastors-church-ban-24102deffa62caf40a8a165d1270cc43
• Baptist Messenger, "Lifeway Research's State of Discipleship Insights Report equips leaders for intentional disciple making" - https://www.baptistmessenger.com/lifeway-researchs-state-of-discipleship-insights-report-equips-leaders-for-intentional-disciple-making/
• Lifeway Research, "Churchgoers Look to Join With Others in Their Discipleship Walk" - https://research.lifeway.com/2026/05/12/churchgoers-look-to-join-with-others-in-their-discipleship-walk/
• Ryan Burge, Graphs About Religion, "The Religious Reversal That Doesn't Make Sense" - https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/the-religious-reversal-that-doesnt
• The Unstuck Group, "Increasing Church Engagement - Episode 106" - https://theunstuckgroup.com/increasing-church-engagement-episode-106-the-unstuck-church-podcast/
• The Unstuck Group, "5 Barriers to Engaging Volunteers" - https://theunstuckgroup.com/5-barriers-volunteer-engagement-unstuck-church-podcast/

One of the dangers facing many churches is one pastors and leaders are often hesitant to name plainly: congregational governance by carnal, immature, or possibly unregenerate membership.

That sentence will make some people nervous. It should.

But ignoring the issue has not made our churches healthier.

Baptists have historically affirmed congregationalism. That is not the problem. A gathered congregation of regenerate believers, submitted to Christ, guided by Scripture, led by qualified pastors, and marked by humility, prayer, and the fruit of the Spirit is a beautiful expression of Baptist ecclesiology.

But that is not always what we are dealing with now.

The 1925 Baptist Faith and Message described the church as “a congregation of baptized believers,” governed by Christ’s laws and exercising the rights and privileges given by His Word. In 1963, the language shifted: “This church is an autonomous body, operating through democratic processes under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.” The 2000 statement retained the phrase, saying each congregation operates “under the Lordship of Christ through democratic processes.” (The Baptist Faith and Message)

That phrase matters: under the Lordship of Christ.
The danger is not democratic process. The danger is democratic process detached from discipleship, regenerate membership, biblical authority, pastoral leadership, and spiritual maturity.

Herschel Hobbs, who chaired the 1963 Baptist Faith and Message committee, did not describe congregational decision-making as raw majority rule. He wrote that each member has equal rights and responsibilities, but that the will of the body should be “reached under the authority and guidance of the Spirit of Christ.” (Baptist Standard)

That is a very different thing from a room full of people saying, “I think,” “I feel,” “I want,” and “I’ve been here longer.”
The Southern Baptist Historical Library and Archives shows that the 1963 committee files include correspondence, drafts, reviews, clippings, and related material from the committee’s work, much of it from or to Hobbs, but the publicly available inventory does not explain why this exact phrase was introduced. (sbhla.org)

So we should be careful not to overclaim. But we can say this: whatever the committee intended, the phrase has often been functionally reinterpreted in local church life as unrestricted congregational democracy.

And that has created a serious problem.

Congregationalism Is Not the Same as Congregational Control
Healthy congregationalism is not mob rule with a hymnbook.

It is not every member having equal authority to redirect the church regardless of spiritual maturity, biblical understanding, actual participation, or submission to Christ.

• It is not inactive members returning for one business meeting to vote down a hard but necessary decision.
• It is not a bloc of angry people organizing in the parking lot, weaponizing procedure, and calling it Baptist polity.
• That is not congregationalism at its best. That is congregationalism deformed by individualism, immaturity, and sometimes carnality.

But that is what we have in some of our weakest, sickest and most declined churches.

Western individualism has not helped us. We have too often baptized the assumption that every opinion deserves equal weight simply because every person has equal worth. Those are not the same thing.

Every church member has equal dignity before God. But not every opinion is equally biblical, wise, prayed over, informed, or Spirit-led.

• A church can be congregational and still be pastor-led.
• A church can value member participation and still define decision-making lanes.
• A church can honor the voice of the body without handing the steering wheel to the least mature people in the room.

Assuming Regenerate Church Membership

The Baptist vision of congregational governance assumes a regenerate church membership.
That is the key.

Congregationalism works best when the congregation is made up of believers who are actually following Jesus. But when easy believism, casual membership, poor membership stewardship, neglected discipline, and bloated rolls shape the church, the system begins to break down.

In too many churches, people who are uninvolved in worship, absent from service, disconnected from mission, and unsubmitted to pastoral leadership still retain full voting authority over the future of the church.

• They may not pray with the church.
• They may not give faithfully.
• They may not serve sacrificially.
• They may not participate meaningfully.
• They may not demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit.

But they can show up at a business meeting and vote.

That is a recipe for dysfunction.

In some cases, the least spiritually mature voices end up setting the direction of the church. The people least invested in the mission can hold veto power over those most committed to it.

Anyone can say "no" and nobody can say "yes."

That is not congregational health. That is ecclesiological malpractice.

Full Democracy Does Not Disciple People

We would not lead a classroom of kindergartners by pure majority vote.
We would not let middle schoolers determine the entire direction of a school by popular opinion.

Why?

Because maturity matters.

• Wisdom matters.
• Formation matters.
• Leadership matters.

Yet in some churches, we apply a form of full democracy to deeply spiritual questions and then act surprised when the outcome is chaos.

• Should we change our governance?
• Should we call this pastor?
• Should we sell property?
• Should we replant?
• Should we merge?
• Should we confront long-term decline?
• Should we discipline members?
• Should we change direction for the sake of mission?

These are not merely procedural questions. They are spiritual questions. They require prayer, surrender, Scripture, trust, humility, courage, and surrender to God's will. 

A carnal congregation will almost always choose comfort over mission.
An immature congregation will usually choose preference over sacrifice.
An unsubmitted congregation will often confuse control with faithfulness.

Why Declining Churches Are Especially Vulnerable

The churches most vulnerable to this problem are often plateaued, declining, conflicted churches with fully congregational governance.

That is not a statistical claim I can prove with a national dataset. It is an observational claim from repeated work with churches in distress.

When a church has declined for decades, the remaining congregation is often tired, fearful, protective, and suspicious. Many forward-thinking leaders left long ago. The church may have endured conflict, pastoral turnover, failed change efforts, and financial pressure.

In that environment, full congregational governance often reinforces decline.

• The system protects the status quo.
• The loudest voices gain influence.
• Informal power networks grow stronger.
• Pastors become cautious.
• Leaders become frustrated.
• Necessary change dies in committee, business meeting, or parking lot conversation.

A church may think it has a voting problem when it actually has a discipleship problem, a membership problem, and a spiritual authority problem.
​
Church Plants Are Telling Us Something

Here is the uncomfortable reality: most new church plants are not replicating this kind of unfettered full congregationalism.

That should tell us something.

Church planters are not usually building systems where every routine decision requires a church vote. They are not typically handing broad directional authority to loosely connected attenders. They know mission requires clarity, speed, trust, and qualified leadership.

Many long established declining churches are defending governance systems that our newest churches would never intentionally design.

That does not automatically mean every older governance structure is wrong. But it does mean we should be honest enough to ask whether our structures are producing health or protecting dysfunction.

I Am Not Against Congregational Participation

Let me be clear:

• This is not an argument against congregationalism.
• This is not an argument against member voice.
• This is not an argument for domineering pastors or unchecked leadership.
• This is an argument for healthy, defined congregationalism under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The congregation should matter. Members should be taught, informed, discipled, heard, and meaningfully involved.

But the church must also recognize that spiritual maturity, biblical qualification, and pastoral leadership matter.

The congregation should affirm major directional decisions. But not every operational decision belongs on the floor of a business meeting.

The congregation should hold leaders accountable. But carnal members should not be allowed to hold the mission hostage.

The Big Five

In many healthier churches, congregational voting is intentionally limited to major covenantal and directional matters.
These are often called the Big Five:
​

1. Calling the senior pastor
2. Approving the annual ministry budget
3. Making enduring changes to bylaws or governance documents
4. Acquiring or disposing of property or debt
5. Receiving and removing members

That kind of structure does not eliminate congregationalism. It clarifies it.
It allows pastors to lead.

• It allows ministry teams to function.
• It allows deacons or elders to serve responsibly.
• It allows the congregation to retain appropriate authority over the most consequential matters.

And it prevents the church from turning every ministry decision into a referendum.

The Real Issue Is Spiritual

The deeper issue is not polity. It is discipleship.

A congregation that lacks biblical formation, spiritual maturity, humility, prayerfulness, surrender, and the fruit of the Spirit will eventually weaponize whatever governance system it has.

But full congregationalism gives that immaturity maximum reach.

• When the flesh governs the church, decline is not far behind.
• When preferences govern the church, mission becomes secondary.
• When inactive members govern the church, active members become discouraged.
• When angry members govern the church, pastors become timid.
• When carnal members govern the church, the Lordship of Christ is functionally replaced by the lordship of opinion.

The Final Word

Baptist congregationalism is not the problem.
Carnal congregationalism is.

A healthy Baptist church is not a pure democracy. It is a covenanted body of believers operating under the Lordship of Jesus Christ, guided by Scripture, led by qualified pastors, served by faithful deacons, and participating together with humility and spiritual responsibility.

The question is not simply, “Did the church vote?”
The better question is, “Was the church spiritually prepared to discern and obey the will of Christ?”

Because when unregenerate, immature, or carnal membership governs the church, the process may be democratic, but the outcome may still be disastrous.

As Southern Baptists arrived in Orlando, as I'm walking the Convention halls, I keep getting asked the same set of questions.

• What did the survey reveal?
• What did it say about support for the Truth and Unity Amendment?
• Are non-pastoral Southern Baptists seeing this the same way pastors are?
• Is the SBC really in danger of shifting from complementarian to egalitarian?
• Is this a crisis, or is it an overreaction?
• Is there a need for another constitutional amendment?
• Could this be handled another way?
• Should Standing Rule 6 be suspended?
• Are SBC entity leaders and seminary presidents calling for the amendment?
• Has the Credentials Committee officially expressed a need for it?
• And what about Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and churches that may not live in the middle of national SBC debates but still cooperate with Southern Baptists?

Those are fair questions. Southern Baptists deserve straight answers.

The survey was launched because claims were being made about what Southern Baptists believe, what Southern Baptists fear, and what Southern Baptists want.

At a moment like this, when messengers are being asked to consider another constitutional amendment, those claims should not be left to assumption, platform, or volume.

Southern Baptists needed to be heard and their responses be revealed-fully. No paywalls, no spin.
​
The survey does not settle every question. It was not a scientific random sample. It was an open grassroots survey. But it does reveal something important: the Southern Baptists who responded are not drifting left on the question of women pastors. They are overwhelmingly complementation.

They are deeply conservative on the office of pastor/elder. They are not clamoring for women to preach in Sunday worship. And yet, they are also more cautious when the question shifts from theology to constitutional process.

That distinction may be the most important finding in the whole survey.

Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents, 90.2% agreed that Scripture reserves the office of pastor/elder for qualified men only. That is not ambiguity. That is overwhelming conviction.

Likewise, 85.7% agreed that the title “Pastor” should only refer to male individuals serving in the biblical office of pastor/elder.

Nearly 80% agreed that ministry titles conferred to women, such as “Women’s Pastor” or “Children’s Pastor,” create confusion regarding pastoral office and should not be used.

And 78.5% disagreed that women should be permitted to preach during Sunday worship gatherings.

The exact opposite of the survey which motived me to launch this effort. 

This is not the profile of a convention sliding into egalitarianism.

It is the profile of a convention that remains strongly complementarian, broadly confessional, and significantly concerned about confusing titles and pastoral functions.
​
But the survey also revealed something else. Southern Baptists are not equally convinced that a new constitutional amendment is the only or wisest answer.

Among self-identified Southern Baptists, 69.3% said the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 is already sufficient on this matter. Only 26.9% said it is not sufficient, while 3.8% had no opinion.

That matters.

If nearly seven in ten Southern Baptist respondents say the Baptist Faith and Message already says enough, then the burden of proof rests on those arguing that the Constitution must say more. The issue is not whether Southern Baptists affirm male-only pastors and elders. The survey shows they do. The issue is whether this proposed constitutional mechanism is necessary, precise, and wise.

Support for the Truth and Unity Amendment itself was real, but not overwhelming. Among self-identified Southern Baptists, 63.1% said the proposed amendment provides greater clarity and should be affirmed. Another 29% said no, and 7.9% were unsure.

That finding mirrors the broader convention atmosphere. There is majority support for more clarity. There is not yet constitutional consensus.

And that leads to Standing Rule 6.

Asked whether Standing Rule 6 should be suspended to remove the ordinary requirements process for the Truth and Unity Amendment to be added to the Constitution, only 46.3% of Southern Baptist respondents said yes. Another 32.5% said no, and 21.2% were unsure.

That is the warning light.

Support for the amendment runs ahead of support for suspending the process. Southern Baptists may want clarity, but many are not convinced that bypassing the ordinary constitutional pathway is the right way to get it.

That should make messengers pause.

Standing Rule 6 exists for a reason. It sends constitutional amendments through review, reflection, and reporting before they are brought back to the messengers. It slows us down. That is not always a bad thing. Sometimes it protects us from our worst instincts. Sometimes it keeps us from constitutionalizing language before the convention has fully understood its reach.

There are moments when rules need to be suspended. But the case for suspension should be stronger than impatience. If the amendment is necessary, precise, and broadly supported, then why not let it go through the normal process? If it cannot survive review, scrutiny, and two consecutive two-thirds votes, is the problem the process—or the proposal?

Some will say, “We have already voted on this three times, and a majority has supported it.”

That is true, but incomplete.

The Law Amendment received majority support, but it failed to reach the required two-thirds threshold in Indianapolis. A similar amendment failed again in Dallas. The 2025 vote received 60.74% support, short of the two-thirds required. In ordinary SBC constitutional terms, that means Southern Baptists have not approved it. We do not get to redefine “settled” as “we voted until my side won.”

That cuts both ways. Opponents should not pretend the issue has gone away. Supporters should not pretend a 60% vote is the same thing as constitutional adoption. Our rules require more than a majority because our Constitution should not be changed lightly.

The question before Orlando is not simply, “Do Southern Baptists believe pastors should be men?” They do.
The better question is, “Has the convention been shown that this amendment is necessary, that this wording is sufficiently clear, and that suspending the ordinary process is justified?”

That is a much higher bar.
There is also the question of whether this is truly a crisis.

The public data do not show a convention-wide egalitarian surge. The best available public evidence suggests that churches with women in pastoral roles remain a small minority within the SBC. Even estimates offered by those concerned about the issue suggest the number of churches with women holding pastor titles is a small percentage of the convention’s total churches. The issue is real, but it is not numerically widespread.

That does not mean it is unimportant. A doctrinal boundary can matter even when only a small number of churches test it. The SBC should be clear that the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to qualified men. Churches should not use titles that confuse the office. The Credentials Committee should not be left to guess what messengers believe.
But there is a difference between clarity and panic.

If the SBC is overwhelmingly complementarian, if the Baptist Faith and Message already says the office of pastor is limited to men, if messengers have already upheld the removal of churches with women serving in pastoral office, and if the number of known cases is relatively small, then we should ask whether this is an existential crisis or a manageable governance issue.

One of the key questions I keep hearing is this: Has the Credentials Committee actually asked for greater clarity?
That question deserves an answer before messengers vote.

If the Credentials Committee needs more guidance, let us hear that plainly. Let the committee explain what it needs, where the current language is insufficient, how many churches have been referred over this issue, how often the problem has appeared, and what kind of cases are creating difficulty. Southern Baptists should not be asked to amend the Constitution based on vague claims of need if the body doing the work has not publicly laid out the problem.

How many churches have been referred to the Credentials Committee in recent years over women serving as pastors? How many were found not to be in friendly cooperation? How many cases involved senior pastors? How many involved staff titles? How many involved preaching? How many were resolved quietly? How many were based on websites, third-party lists, or outdated information? And perhaps just as importantly, should Southern Baptists assume that a constitutional amendment would eliminate the need for referrals and appeals altogether?

The Credentials Committee process exists precisely because difficult cases arise and because churches have the right to appeal decisions to the messenger body. If referrals and appeals continue to come before the convention floor, is that evidence of failure, or simply evidence that our polity is functioning as designed? Before promising that a constitutional amendment will remove these debates from the annual meeting, Southern Baptists should ask whether that expectation is realistic—or even desirable. A convention that allows messengers to hear appeals and make final judgments may spend time on difficult cases, but that is part of how accountability and cooperation work in Baptist life.

Those are not hostile questions. They are responsible questions.

The SBC has mechanisms. The Credentials Committee can make inquiries. The Executive Committee can recommend that a church is not in friendly cooperation. Messengers can sustain or reject that recommendation. That process has already been used. Saddleback and Fern Creek were removed. Immanuel Baptist in Paducah was later removed. The convention has not shown itself powerless.

So if we already have a mechanism, why is a constitutional amendment necessary? And if it is necessary, what exact problem does this amendment solve that the Baptist Faith and Message and current Credentials process cannot solve?

That is where the wording matters.

The original Truth and Unity language referred to a woman serving in the “office or function” of pastor/elder/overseer, “such as preaching to the assembled congregation.” After concern was raised, the language was revised from “such as” to “specifically.” That change was intended to narrow the amendment and focus the concern on preaching to the assembled congregation.

But the fact that the change was needed confirms the concern. The phrase “office or function” is doing a lot of work.

Some supporters say the revised wording answers those concerns. Others are not convinced. The backlash to the wording change shows that the concern is not merely about women pastors. It is about trust, interpretation, and enforcement.

One side fears churches will use ambiguity to move toward egalitarian practice while claiming to remain Southern Baptist. The other side fears denominational leaders or outside pressure groups will use ambiguity to accuse churches that are confessionally complementarian but differ in ministry titles, staff structures, or worship practices.

Both concerns should be taken seriously.

This is where Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and historically connected congregations must not be treated as an afterthought.

Southern Baptists need to remember that churches do not all relate to the SBC in the same way. Some churches have historical, associational, state-convention, or informal ties that do not fit neatly into the assumptions of those who live at the center of national SBC life. Some Black churches and language churches may not participate in national SBC life in the same way other churches do, even if they appear in SBC databases or cooperate through certain channels.

If a constitutional amendment creates a more aggressive enforcement culture, some churches may feel they are being judged from a distance by people who do not know their congregation, their history, their structure, or their relationship to the SBC.

That does not mean doctrine should bend by race, language, or church background. It means enforcement should be careful, factual, and fair.

We should also be honest about institutional trust.

If Southern Baptists are told that this is urgent, that the rules must be suspended, and that the Constitution must be changed immediately, they have every right to ask why. Has something changed between Dallas and Orlando? Have new cases emerged? Has the Credentials Committee said it cannot do its work? Have entity leaders broadly asked for this? Have state convention leaders? Have Black Baptist leaders? Have language-church leaders? Have associational leaders?

Or is this another attempt to pass what has already failed until it finally passes?

That question may sound blunt, but it is the question many are asking. Some will say, “The issue is not settled until the Constitution is clear.” Others will hear that and ask, “Or is it not settled until you get the outcome you want?”

In Baptist life, process is not a nuisance. It is part of how we maintain trust. A two-thirds requirement is not a technicality. It is a guardrail. It forces constitutional changes to earn broad consensus. If we lower that bar in spirit, even while technically following the rules, we should not be surprised when people lose trust.

There are benefits if the amendment passes. It could provide greater clarity. It could signal that the SBC means what the Baptist Faith and Message says. It could discourage confusing titles. It could help the Credentials Committee evaluate churches that openly affirm women serving in pastoral office or function. It could settle the matter for some.
But there are also risks.

It could expand the Credentials Committee’s work into a steady stream of title-policing and function-policing. It could invite churches to accuse one another based on websites, clips, screenshots, and social media outrage. It could create confusion over women who teach, speak, pray, testify, lead ministries, serve in missions, or address the gathered church in ways Southern Baptists have historically permitted. It could further strain relationships with Black churches, language churches, immigrant churches, and churches whose connection to SBC life has been more local or associational than national. It could deepen the sense that national SBC life is increasingly driven by pressure campaigns rather than cooperative mission.

And if the amendment fails, there are risks there too. Supporters may conclude the SBC lacks the courage to enforce its own confession. Churches using pastor titles for women may believe the convention lacks resolve. The same debate may return year after year, draining energy from evangelism, church planting, revitalization, missions, and abuse reform.

So what should Southern Baptists do?

First, we should acknowledge the truth about the data. The survey does not reveal egalitarian drift. It reveals strong complementarian conviction.

Second, we should tell the truth about the process. Support for the amendment is higher than support for suspending Standing Rule 6. That matters.

Third, we should tell the truth about the crisis claim. The issue is real, but the evidence does not show a convention-wide egalitarian takeover.

Fourth, we should ask the Credentials Committee to speak clearly. If greater clarity is needed, let the committee say so and explain why.

Fifth, we should resist exaggeration.  We should be presented with actual statistical evidence of how many churches are not in friendly cooperation and a clear definition of what the presenting concerns are. Inflated rhetoric may win applause, but it rarely builds trust.

Sixth, we should protect both doctrinal conviction and cooperative restraint. A convention can be clear without becoming reactionary. It can discipline churches without creating a culture of suspicion. It can affirm male-only pastors and elders without treating every unresolved question as a constitutional emergency.

Seventh, we should reject polarization. Southern Baptist have had a historically big tent when it comes to churches and convictions, not so large that we deny the foundations of the faith but large enough that there is light between brothers, congregations, Pastors, Seminary Profs, Presidents and Entity heads. Some to my left on an issue on which I am far right, are not  liberal, moderate or progressive necessarily and I need to avoid labeling them such. Tellingly, some historic conservative pastors in the past few weeks have been labeled moderate and liberal by those overzealous to show just how conservative they are. 

The SBC does not need to choose between truth and unity. But it does need to recognize that naming an amendment “Truth and Unity” does not guarantee that it will produce either.

The question before messengers is not whether Southern Baptists are complementarian. The survey says they are. The Baptist Faith and Message says they are. The convention’s recent actions say they are.

The real question is whether this amendment, this wording, and this procedural path are the wisest way to strengthen our cooperation.

Southern Baptists should not be afraid of clarity. But neither should we be careless with our Constitution.
​
A small statistical problem can still matter doctrinally. But a serious doctrinal concern does not automatically justify an oversized institutional response.

That is the balance we need in Orlando: conviction without panic, clarity without haste, and cooperation without confusion.

That would serve both truth and unity.

Background and report documents can be found on bobickford.com

As Southern Baptists consider the Truth and Unity Amendment and the proposed suspension of Standing Rule 6, one of the most important groups to understand is not only those who are firmly supportive or firmly opposed. It is those who marked “Unsure.”

At first glance, “unsure” may sound like theological indecision. But the survey responses tell a more careful story.

Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents who were unsure about suspending Rule 6, the hesitation does not appear to be driven primarily by rejection of complementarian doctrine. Many in this group strongly affirm that the office of pastor/elder is reserved for qualified men.

Many oppose women preaching during Sunday worship gatherings. Many believe the issue matters for the identity and future of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Their uncertainty lies elsewhere.

They are not primarily asking, “Does this issue matter?”
They are asking, “Is suspending Rule 6 the right way to handle it?”

That distinction matters.

The Rule 6 “Unsure” Respondents at a Glance
Among self-identified Southern Baptist respondents, 304 respondents marked that they were unsure about suspending Rule 6.

This subgroup is important because it does not appear to represent a casually undecided or theologically indifferent audience. The demographic and background data suggest a group that is engaged, conservative, and significantly connected to church leadership and Baptist life.

                               Profile Marker                                                       Count / Percent

                        Subgroup size                                                             304 Respondents

                       Pastor/Elder                                                                  120 / 39.5%

                       Lay Person/Member                                                    90 / 29.6%

                       Volunteer Leader                                                        50 / 16.4%

                      Church Staff                                                                  32 / 10.5%

                      Other role                                                                     12 / 3.9%

                     Male                                                                                69.7%

                     Female                                                                            30.3%

                 Baptist Reformed/Calvinistic                                          58.9%
                 theological framework.
               
                Primary concern: biblical fidelity.                                    71.4%

​                 Largest age bloc: 35-44                                                   33.2%

                Southeast/South region combined                                66.1%


This matters for interpretation.
The “Unsure” group is not primarily composed of respondents who are detached from SBC life.

Nearly four in ten are pastors or elders. Nearly three in ten are lay members. A meaningful share are volunteer leaders or church staff. Their responses represent people who are close enough to church life to understand both doctrinal concerns and practical consequences.

Their leading concern is also telling: biblical fidelity. That means their hesitation about suspending Rule 6 should not be quickly dismissed as doctrinal softness. For many, the hesitation is not about whether Scripture matters.

It is about how Southern Baptists should handle Scripture, confession, polity, and constitutional language together.

An Important Update to the Amendment Language
​A recent update to the proposed wording is important. Dr. Albert Mohler has indicated his desire to revise the amendment by removing the words “such as” and replacing them with “specifically.”

The updated language would read: “Does not act to affirm, appoint, or endorse a woman serving in the office or function of a pastor/elder/overseer, specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.”

That change matters because some respondents were concerned that “such as” could create an open-ended list of prohibited activities. Replacing it with “specifically” appears intended to narrow the meaning and clarify that the amendment is aimed at women preaching to the assembled congregation as an expression of pastoral function. As of mid-to-late day June 3, 2026 some of the original amendment supporters feel a capulation has taken place and are expressing their frustration with the change and with Mohler.

The survey comments (closed on June 2, 2026) suggest that the concerns among unsure respondents were not only limited to the now changed phrase “such as.” Even with the revised wording, several other terms remain important to them: office, function, pastor, elder, overseer, preaching, assembled congregation, affirm, appoint, and endorse.

The updated language may address one layer of ambiguity, but it does not remove all of the concerns reflected in the survey.

1. The Unsure Group Is More Convictional Than Confused
One of the clearest findings is that respondents unsure about suspending Rule 6 are not generally unsure about the underlying theological question. Many affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, believe the pastoral office is limited to men as qualified by Scripture, and express concern about confusion surrounding pastoral titles and pastoral functions.

This means it would be a mistake to interpret the “Unsure” group as simply drifting away from historic Southern Baptist conviction. Many are not looking for theological compromise. They are looking for procedural wisdom, careful language, and confidence that the Convention is not moving too quickly.

Their posture is closer to this: “We agree the issue is important. We are not yet convinced that suspending the rules is necessary, wise, or safe.”

That is not indifference. It is caution.

One respondent captured this tension clearly: “I’m against female pastors but believe the process in place is able to handle these issues.”

Another wrote: “I believe the BFM 2000 is pretty clear.”

These comments show that, for some unsure respondents, the question is not whether Southern Baptists have a doctrinal standard. The question is whether the Convention needs to suspend its own process in order to add another constitutional standard immediately.

2. The Central Concern Is Process
The strongest theme among unsure respondents is concern about process. Many Southern Baptists understand that constitutional changes should not be handled lightly. Standing Rule 6 exists to prevent the Convention from changing its governing documents too quickly, too emotionally, or without sufficient review. For those unsure about suspension, the process itself is not merely a bureaucratic inconvenience. It is a safeguard.

Some respondents are not necessarily opposed to the amendment’s theological concern. They are uneasy about bypassing the normal process.

That concern appears in comments like this: “Do I think this is a helpful amendment? Yes. Would I vote to affirm the amendment and to suspend Rule 6? Yes. However, I do worry about the repercussions of merely suspending rules for future issues. Seems a dangerous precedent...”

Even though this respondent leans supportive, the concern is unmistakable: what the Convention does now may become a precedent later.

Others expressed a similar procedural instinct more directly: “The rule seems unclear generally…I’m in favor of procedures, but this one has some issues regardless of its use in this case.”

The deeper concern is that process, once weakened, may not be easily recovered. If the Convention suspends its rules for this matter, future messengers may learn that urgency is enough to bypass normal constitutional procedure.

That is not a small concern in Baptist life. Southern Baptists are not governed by bishops, boards, or denominational executives. They cooperate through messengers, churches, confessions, committees, constitutions, and rules. Process is not a side issue. It is part of how cooperation is maintained.

3. Many Believe the Wording Still Needs Work
Another major theme is concern over language.
The proposed change from “such as” to “specifically” may reduce one concern. But the survey comments show that uncertainty is also attached to other words in the amendment.

Several unsure respondents expressed concern about the language of function, especially when connected to pastor/elder/overseer.

One respondent wrote: “The concept of ‘function’ and ‘such as’ does not give enough clarity to women who want to serve faithfully.”

The “such as” portion may be revised, but the concern about function remains.

Another respondent stated: “I mentioned that I don’t think the amendment is clear enough. I think when it says ‘function’ in the role of pastor that is vague and will cause more confusion.”

This is one of the central concerns in the unsure group. The word “function” is doing significant work. But respondents are asking what exactly it includes and excludes.

Does “function” mean preaching to the gathered congregation? Does it mean exercising elder authority? Does it mean teaching mixed adults? Does it include pastoral care? Does it include shepherding language? Does it include ministry direction? Does it include a woman speaking about a sermon in a church-sponsored setting? Does it include the use of titles? Does it include actions by the church that “affirm,” “appoint,” or “endorse” even when no formal office is given?

​One respondent put the question plainly: “What are you asking is an important matter? Is it titles or women functioning as pastors?”

That question gets to the heart of the uncertainty. Respondents are trying to understand whether the amendment is addressing office, title, preaching, function, endorsement, or some combination of all of these.

4. “Function” Remains the Word That Carries the Most Concern
Even with the proposed change to “specifically,” the word function remains one of the most important unresolved concerns.

Southern Baptists broadly understand the office of pastor/elder/overseer as limited to qualified men. But “function” can be more difficult to define.

One respondent wrote: “Pastors have many functions shared by all believers like discipleship, hospitality, etc.” That comment identifies a real interpretive problem. Some functions commonly associated with pastors are not exclusive to pastors. Pastors teach, but not only pastors teach. Pastors disciple, but all believers are called to make disciples. Pastors counsel, but mature believers also counsel. Pastors exhort, but the congregation exhorts one another. Pastors show hospitality, but hospitality is a Christian virtue for the whole church.

If “function” is narrowly defined as preaching to the assembled congregation in a pastoral capacity, the amendment may be more limited. But if “function” is interpreted broadly, it could create uncertainty about women serving faithfully in ministries Southern Baptists have historically affirmed.

Another respondent wrote: “If we are going to include function of pastor and not just title then, as silly as it is, we must clearly define what it means to ‘function’ as a pastor.”

That comment does not reject the theological premise. It asks for definition before constitutional action.

Another respondent was more specific: “My issue with the amendment is the ‘preaching’ language.”

The updated version still includes preaching. It now says “specifically preaching to the assembled congregation.” That may narrow the phrase, but questions remain: What constitutes preaching? What counts as the assembled congregation? Is this only the Lord’s Day worship gathering? Does it include conferences, chapel services, youth gatherings, live streamed events, church-sponsored podcasts, midweek services, or special meetings?

Those are not hypothetical questions for many respondents. They are the kind of questions that arise once constitutional language becomes a basis for credentialing decisions.

5. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 Still Matters
A significant theme among unsure respondents is confidence that the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 already provides the SBC’s doctrinal center.

The BF&M 2000 states that the office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture. For many Southern Baptists, that language is already clear.

One respondent wrote: “I believe the BFM 2000 is pretty clear.”

Another said: “I do believe a study group to give clarity for the credentials committee would be helpful.”

That second comment is especially important. It does not suggest doing nothing. It suggests that the issue may be better addressed through study, guidance, and credentialing clarity rather than immediate constitutional action through suspended rules.

For these respondents, the question may be: Is the problem the confession, or is the problem application?

If the problem is that churches are not being held accountable to the BF&M, then some respondents appear to believe the answer may be clearer application through existing processes. If the problem is that the BF&M is insufficient, then constitutional amendment becomes a different kind of solution.

The “Unsure” group appears divided on that point, but many of their comments show they are not convinced that suspending Rule 6 is necessary in order to achieve doctrinal faithfulness.

6. There Is Concern for Women Serving Faithfully Within Biblical Boundaries
Another important theme among unsure respondents is concern that broad or unclear language may unintentionally discourage faithful women from serving in biblically appropriate ways.

This is not the same thing as support for women serving as pastors. Many of these respondents affirm male-only pastors and elders. Their concern is that unclear constitutional language could make faithful women feel suspect for serving in ways the church has historically encouraged.

One respondent wrote: “The concept of ‘function’  does not give enough clarity to women who want to serve faithfully.”

This concern remains relevant even though “such as” shifts to “specifically,” because the larger question about “function” remains.

Southern Baptists have long relied on women in missions, discipleship, teaching children, teaching women, evangelism, hospitality, mercy ministry, counseling, administration, prayer, theological education, and local church service. Many complementarian Southern Baptists want to preserve those ministries while maintaining a male-only pastor/elder office.

The concern is that constitutional language should be clear enough to protect both convictions: the male-only pastoral office and the honorable ministry of women within biblical boundaries.

A Convention can say what women may not do while also being clear about what women should be encouraged to do.

7. Some Are Weary of SBC Conflict
A final theme is fatigue. Some unsure respondents are tired of seeing the SBC defined by controversy.

They believe doctrine matters, but they also worry about public witness, mission, unity, and the spirit in which debates are conducted.

One respondent wrote: “The SBC has become a group that is known for standing AGAINST things, instead of standing FOR anything.”

Another said: “If we focused more on spreading the Gospel and less on divisive doctrines like these, we may not have so many people turning away from Christ.”

​Another put it even more simply: “I am so tired of the sbc arguing all the time.”

And another respondent expressed concern in stronger institutional terms: “This discussion is shameful and embarrassing. Local church autonomy is being trampled...”

These comments reveal a pastoral and missional concern. For some respondents, the issue is not only what the SBC decides but how the SBC conducts itself while deciding.

They are concerned that the Convention may become known for procedural fights, platform conflict, and public controversy more than cooperative mission. Whether one agrees with that assessment or not, the sentiment is real and should not be dismissed.

The Real Message Beneath the “Unsure” Responses
The unsure respondents reveal something important about the present SBC moment. Southern Baptists broadly want biblical conviction. Many also want careful process. They do not want doctrinal ambiguity, but neither do they want constitutional carelessness.

They want clarity, but not confusion. They want faithfulness, but not unnecessary division. They want the Convention to be honest about real concerns without rushing language that may create new ones.
That combination should be taken seriously.

The “Unsure” group is not best understood as apathetic. Many are engaged, thoughtful, and convictional. Their comments suggest they are weighing not merely the amendment’s intention, but its wording, process, precedent, and long-term consequences.

They are asking whether this is the right language, at the right time, through the right process, with enough clarity to help rather than harm cooperation.

Final Word
The most important takeaway from the unsure group is this:

• Their uncertainty is not primarily theological. It is procedural, linguistic, constitutional, and missional.
• They are not necessarily asking the SBC to avoid the issue. They are asking the SBC to handle the issue in a way worthy of its importance.
• The revised wording from “such as” to “specifically” is an important development. But the survey shows that many concerns remain tied to other words and concepts in the amendment, especially “function,” “preaching,” and the implications of suspending Rule 6.

Southern Baptists should pay careful attention to these respondents. They may represent a significant portion of messengers who affirm the doctrine, respect the BF&M, value the Convention’s process, and still hesitate to suspend the rules.
​
The “Unsure” responses ultimately reveal a Convention trying to balance conviction and cooperation, clarity and caution, doctrine and process. That balance is difficult, but it is not weakness. It may be exactly the kind of prudence Southern Baptists need in a moment when words, rules, and trust all matter.

​

Now Available:The SBC Women in Ministry Survey Report 

For the past several days, I have been asking Southern Baptists and others connected to Baptist life to respond to an open survey regarding women in ministry, pastoral titles, preaching, teaching, church cooperation, and the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting.

I launched this survey because I believed then, and still believe now, that Southern Baptists need more than assumptions, anecdotes, social media reactions, and carefully selected data points when we are making decisions that affect churches, cooperation, trust, and the future of our convention.

We need to hear from actual Southern Baptists. We need to see the data. 

This survey was not created to settle every question. It was not designed to inflame an already tense conversation. It was not a scientific, convention-wide poll with a randomized sample. It was an open, voluntary, grassroots survey built to gather responses from pastors, church staff members, volunteer leaders, laypeople, and others who wanted to speak directly to these questions.

The survey data was pulled at 5:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. At that time, there were 1,398 total responses. (As this post was being created we crossed over the 1400 mark as you will see reflected in the slides)

Because this conversation concerns what Southern Baptists believe and how Southern Baptist churches cooperate, the analysis makes an important distinction. The full respondent pool is reported demographically, but the substantive analysis focuses only on those who self-identified as Southern Baptist.

That means the major findings, written-comment analysis, and interpretive summaries are based on SBC voices, not on the broader respondent pool.

Two reports are now available.

The first is the full survey analysis. It looks at the total response set, identifies the Southern Baptist respondent group, and analyzes the major questions related to the male-only pastor/elder office, the use of the title “pastor,” women preaching in Sunday worship gatherings, women teaching mixed-gender groups outside Sunday worship, church cooperation, the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, the Truth & Unity Amendment, and the proposed suspension of Standing Rule 6. VIEW FULL REPORT: hbit.ly/4x5rmsh

The second is a focused subgroup report. It looks only at self-identified Southern Baptists who are not pastors/elders and not church staff. In other words, it gives special attention to lay members, volunteer leaders, and others who are part of Southern Baptist churches but are not serving in formal pastoral or staff roles.
VIEW SUBGROUP REPORT: bit.ly/4dTddpi

That subgroup matters. One concern in denominational conversations is that the loudest voices are often platformed leaders, pastors, institutional figures, or online commentators. Those voices matter, but they are not the only voices. The non-pastor/non-staff report helps us hear from engaged Southern Baptists who are closer to the pew than the platform.

Several things are clear from the reports.

• First, the Southern Baptist respondents in this survey strongly affirm the male-only pastor/elder office. In the full Southern Baptist respondent group, agreement was very high. The non-pastor/non-staff subgroup also showed strong support for this conviction.
• Second, the survey shows that the debate is not simply about whether Southern Baptists affirm male-only pastors. Among these respondents, that point appears broadly settled. The harder questions involve application: titles, functions, preaching, teaching, local church practice, cooperation, and convention process.
• Third, respondents were much more divided on questions such as women teaching mixed-gender groups outside Sunday worship, flexibility in ministry titles, and how churches should cooperate when titles like “Women’s Pastor” are used.
• Fourth, support for the Truth & Unity Amendment is stronger than support for suspending Standing Rule 6. That matters. The data suggests that many Southern Baptists may share a theological conviction while still having real concerns about process, precedent, timing, wording, and trust.
• Fifth, the non-pastor/non-staff subgroup is especially important. That group still largely shares the core complementarian conviction, but it is more cautious about constitutional acceleration and procedural shortcuts. That should not be ignored.

I have intentionally kept the commentary light in these reports. The goal is not to tell readers what they must conclude. The goal is to put the data in front of people so they can read it, weigh it, question it, and draw their own conclusions.

That is why the reports and data are being made available publicly.

In a moment of importance for the Southern Baptist Convention, statements about what Southern Baptists believe should not be locked behind paywalls. Data that may influence messengers, churches, pastors, and denominational decisions should be open to review.

For-profit companies are free to do what they want with their own research, but when broad claims are made about Southern Baptists during a consequential denominational debate, the underlying data should be available for examination. 

(view the spreadsheet) https://bit.ly/4o8SNxs
(view the slide deck)  https://canva.link/j1vjirih7c6rczj 

Transparency matters.
Open questions matter.
Public analysis matters.

And Southern Baptists should be able to evaluate claims about Southern Baptists without having to pay for access to the information.

These reports are not perfect. No open survey is. The respondent pool is voluntary, engaged, and not a randomized sample of every Southern Baptist church member. The data should be read honestly, carefully, and within its limitations.

But it is real data. It is public data. It is available for review. And it gives us a meaningful window into how a large group of self-identified Southern Baptists responded to some of the very questions now before the Convention.
I welcome others to download the data, run their own analysis, challenge mine, and offer additional insight. That is how serious work should be done.

The goal here is simple: more light, less heat.

Southern Baptists deserve clarity, honesty, and transparency as we walk into important conversations and decisions together.

May we think clearly, speak truthfully, act wisely, and keep the mission before us.

For the past several years, Southern Baptists have engaged in significant conversations surrounding women in ministry, pastoral titles, church leadership, cooperation, and biblical interpretation. Much of the discussion has been passionate. But often, conversations have been driven more by factions, inflammatory language, emotions, assumptions, isolated experiences, and online reactions than broad-based data from across the life of the SBC itself.

Collecting data on this and any other issue is time consuming, difficult and expensive. I get that.

Reactions to a recent survey by conducted by Sam Rainer were wide and varied. Some of the releases and commentary pointed to a wider acceptance of Women Pastors preaching among SBC identified respondents.  

Part of Rainer's text: Let’s do another graph today: Among Southern Baptists, 81% agree that a woman should be allowed to preach to the entire congregation. This level of support for women preaching (81%) is higher than the SBC’s support for women pastors (29%).

I work with churches, a local network here in Nashville. I also worked with hundreds, perhaps thousands of churches across North America for at least 8 years as part of a denominational entity.  That statement seems, from my experience, incredibly high and difficult to believe. I acknowledge, I might be wrong, but it seems high.

I asked Sam if the report could be made available for review. (Sam's response is above) Unfortunately the report and subsequent data, metrics and respondent categories are not made publicly available for critical examination. I'd have to pay 10 bucks to view them. They are behind a paywall as Church Answers and Rainer are a for profit business.

I gathered that from the social media comments and back and forth, the total survey group was about 1700 give or take, if so, it met a fairly accurate representation of the larger SBC population and has a confidence rate of 95% +/- I did some analysis here. 

Only a percentage of that 1700 were Baptists. We don't know how many were women or men, their ages, geographic distributions, or theological backgrounds. We don't know if they are Pastors or Lay Person's, conservative or not. We don't know where the survey pool came from. I get it...yes 10 bucks might answer some of these questions but I still wouldn't have access to all the data, the raw data, at least not likely. 

So....

I think we need another survey, at least a grass roots one. So, I took a stab at it and I built it, for free, with a couple of hours of time and personal investment and google forms. (Women in Ministry SBC Survey)

Why Another Survey? 

To attempt to gain a better understand where Southern Baptists actually stand on these issues.  I am launching a public survey designed to gather responses from pastors, staff members, church leaders, and laypeople from every region of the country.

The goal is not to inflame the conversation, but to better inform it.
Transparency matters in a discussion like this.

For that reason, every survey question is publicly visible before participation so respondents can clearly see what is being asked before they consider taking the survey.

The survey is intentionally not hidden behind a paywall or restricted platform because these conversations affect the broader Baptist family and should remain accessible to the churches and people involved in them.

The findings, summaries, charts, and analysis will be made publicly available on this site for anyone interested in understanding the current landscape of opinion and practice within the SBC and beyond.

Equally important is broad participation. I hope to hear from Southern Baptists and evangelicals from every region of the country, every church size, multiple theological perspectives, and a wide variety of ministry roles.

Responses from Baptists from every region of the country and background are important in helping provide a broad and fair picture of current perspectives.

Sample Size Goals

• 1,000 responses: Minimum threshold for meaningful analysis
• 1,500–2,500 responses: Strong representation
• 5,000+ responses: Gold standard

The initial goal for this survey is 2,000 completed responses by Tuesday June 2, 2026. The survey will remain open until Wednesday June 3, 2026 

Please consider sharing this survey with your Baptist friends, within your ministry networks, and on your social media platforms.

Whether you are a pastor, staff member, seminary student, deacon, volunteer leader, or church member, your perspective matters.

My hope is that this survey can contribute something often missing in difficult denominational conversations: clarity, honesty, transparency, and a better understanding of where people truly stand and how might respond.

And in all, may God's Kingdom Advance for His Glory and our good.

A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.

This Week's Big Signal

The clearest signal this week is that the renewal challenge is shifting from simple attendance concern to integration capacity. Hartford's new national congregational report says median in-person worship attendance rose to 70 in 2025, the first positive gain in 25 years of tracking, while also warning that the rebound is uneven, smaller congregations are still struggling, and much of the growth reflects reshuffling rather than broad religious expansion.

That matters because the headline is encouraging, but it does not mean churches are automatically becoming healthier.

The more revealing companion signal is what happens after people show up. The Unstuck Church Report says group participation rose from 43% to 51% of attendance year over year, volunteer engagement rose from 35% to 41%, and first-time contacts were up 12%, with sub-500 churches slightly outpacing larger churches in contact growth. Colin Pugh's renewal markers and Ed Stetzer's recent work on the 200 barrier point in the same direction: durable renewal now depends less on attracting attention and more on moving people into discipleship, serving, leadership, and community trust.

One qualifier matters. The most optimistic interpretation floating around this month is that rising attendance proves broad revival. Hartford's own framing is more careful. This looks more like recalibration than full-scale renewal, which means leaders should respond with gratitude and discipline rather than triumphalism.

Trends for Leaders to Notice

1. Attendance is rebounding, but not evenly. Hartford reports the first attendance gain in 25 years, yet it also says small congregations remain under pressure and growth is often coming from people moving between churches. Leaders should notice that the environment is more open than it was a few years ago, but the competitive and structural pressure on fragile churches has not disappeared.
2. The real bottleneck is assimilation into community and service. Unstuck's Q1 2026 benchmarks show stronger group participation, volunteer recovery, and more first-time contacts. That suggests more people are willing to engage. The practical question for leaders is whether their church has a clear path from visit to relationship, from relationship to formation, and from formation to service.
3. Leadership multiplication is becoming the hidden growth issue. Stetzer argues that churches trying to move from roughly 125 to 200 people need a far deeper leadership bench, not just a busier calendar. Colin Pugh makes the same point from a renewal angle by naming reduced dependence on one or two people as a marker that renewal is actually working. Leaders should notice that growth often exposes thin structure before it produces lasting fruit.
4. Small churches need right-sized health, not borrowed big-church assumptions. Karl Vaters argues that the first step toward a healthy small church is to stop assuming smallness itself is the problem. That is especially relevant right now because many of the churches most in need of renewal will never become large, but they can become honest, healthy, and locally fruitful.

What's Overhyped

The most overhyped narrative this week is the rush to label every encouraging attendance headline as revival. The live conversation sparked by Hartford's report is understandable, but Hartford itself says the story is uneven and shaped partly by post-pandemic reshuffling. Churches should treat this moment as an opening for faithful next steps, not as proof that their deeper renewal work is finished.

Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists

The greatest opportunity right now is building a visible discipleship and leadership spine sturdy enough to hold new openness. Many churches have become better at attracting a visit than at absorbing a person. The churches most likely to benefit from this season will be the ones that make the next step obvious: a relationship, a group, a serving team, a mentoring path, a leadership lane, or a partnership that strengthens weak places.

For Southern Baptist and non-denominational leaders, that means working at two levels at once. Inside the church, clarify the path from attendance to belonging and from belonging to contribution. Beyond the church, strengthen outside supports such as associational partnerships, renewal cohorts, seasoned mentors, and trusted replant or revitalization guides. Practical Shepherding's 2026 cohort and NAMB's spring Replant Bootcamp both reflect the same instinct: churches in renewal need more leaders who can share the load, not just more ideas.

The work of renewal is rarely dramatic in the moment. It is usually slow, honest, prayerful, and patient. But week by week, the churches that face reality, stay on mission, and take faithful next steps are the ones most likely to see lasting fruit.

Sources

Hartford / FACT Report
Signs of Rebound Amid Uneven Recovery: The Changing Congregational Landscape
https://www.covidreligionresearch.org/research/national-survey-research/signs-of-rebound-amid-uneven-recovery-the-changing-congregational-landscape/

Hartford Press Release
HIRR Report Shows First Rise in U.S. Congregation Attendance in 25 Years Amid Uneven Recovery
https://www.hartfordinternational.edu/news-events/news/hirr-report-shows-first-rise-us-congregation-attendance-25-years-uneven-recovery

The Unstuck Church Report Q1 2026
The Unstuck Church Report – Q1 2026
https://2343950.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/2343950/Unstuck%20Church%20Report/The%20Unstuck%20Church%20Report_Q1%202026.pdf

​Baptist Press: 10 Markers
10 Markers That Church Renewal Is Working
https://www.baptistpress.com/resource-library/bptoolbox/10-markers-that-church-renewal-is-working/

Ed Stetzer: Breaking 200
The Leadership Question: Breaking 200
https://churchleaders.com/voices/2215674-the-leadership-question-breaking-200.html

Karl Vaters: Healthy Small Church
First Steps Toward a Healthy Small Church
https://karlvaters.com/first-steps-healthy/

Practical Shepherding Cohort
Practical Shepherding Cohort Registration
https://practicalshepherding.com/cohort/register

NAMB Replant Bootcamp
NOBTS Replant Bootcamp
https://www.namb.net/church-replanting/events/nobts-replant-bootcamp/

Several times a year some prominent leaders in our convention sound alarms about imminent existential dangers facing our Convention of Churches. I believe they mean well, but their warnings often miss the mark. 

Why? 

Because their interaction with a range of churches is limited. They largely associate with healthy mid-sized to larger churches of their particular tribe within our larger convention. 

While I’m not completely certain, I don’t hear of many or any of the national leaders who are pushing the alarm buttons walking into the doors of churches running under 100. The ones that have been in decline for 60+ years.
The churches dealing with deferred maintenance, controllers or gatekeepers who refuse to let go of tradition, who stifle efforts to move the church forward because it will lessen their power and change their Sunday morning experience.

I've not heard if they have sat around tables, in dark damp and dank fellowship halls, talking to Pastors, Committee heads who just want to keep the church going but not really advance the Gospel. 

The National Leaders sounding the alarms are somewhat insulated and I think I can say with fairness a bit isolated. 

I'm around those tables, answering calls and questions, intervening to assist a church in crisis, be it the Pastor or the Committee Leaders, Deacons, a Student Pastor or a concerned Congregant. They are not mentioning concerns that the prominent national leaders are, not even close.

When most people think about the challenges facing churches today, they usually point outward.

• Culture.
• Politics.
• Secularism.
• Demographic shifts.
• Economic pressure.

Those realities matter. But I am increasingly convinced that the greatest threats facing many churches in our convention are not primarily external.

They are internal.
They are spiritual.

And unless we diagnose them honestly, we will chase false alarms, we’ll think the problems are in places they’re really not.

Declining attendance, membership losses, budget pressure, conflict, pastoral turnover, and ministry fatigue rarely emerge out of nowhere. They are usually downstream from deeper spiritual and cultural realities inside the church itself.

I believe several interconnected issues are undermining the health and future of many churches in our convention.
I see them in the churches I described above with all too common frequency. 

These are the issues over which we should be sounding the alarms.

Deficient Discipleship

This is where the breakdown begins.

We have generation upon generation of church members and attenders whose level of biblical education far exceeds their level of faithful obedience.

In short, they know more about God’s Word than they live out..

That is not merely an information problem. It is a formation problem.

Barna research has repeatedly shown a widening gap between Christian identification and actual spiritual practice. While many Americans still identify as Christians, far fewer demonstrate lives shaped by biblical conviction and active faith practice. Barna describes this as a shrinking influence of faith in everyday life.

Lifeway Research has likewise noted that many churchgoers possess biblical familiarity while struggling to integrate their faith into everyday living and witness.

That reality should deeply concern us. What are we actually doing then? 
Holding services, hearing a message and then going home? 
We are not forming sold out disciples en masse. 

A church can have Bible studies, conferences, podcasts, sermon series, and classes and still fail to make disciples if people are not increasingly obeying Jesus, demonstrating transformed character and evidencing the Fruit of the Spirit.

Biblical literacy without surrender produces spiritually immature believers who know the language of faith but resist the demands of faithfulness.

The Elevation of Personal Preference Over the Will of God

When discipleship weakens, preference rises.

​The church begins to function from the authority of personal perspective rather than surrendered obedience.
“I think…”“I believe…”“I want…”“In my opinion…”

Those statements are not automatically sinful. But they become dangerous when they outrank more important questions:

• What does God want for us?
• What does His Word say?
• What does the life of Jesus show us?
• What would faithfulness require?

Christianity Today recently described modern evangelicalism as experiencing a “loosening” of shared authority structures, doctrinal confidence, and institutional trust. The article specifically noted that phrases like “Pastor John knows best” or “the elders say so” no longer carry meaningful authority for many believers.

That reflects something much deeper than generational preference.
It reflects the rise of theological individualism.

When personal preference becomes the functional authority of the church, mission suffers because sacrifice suffers. Churches become increasingly governed by comfort, nostalgia, fear, and control rather than surrender to Christ.

Eventually the church stops asking:

• “What does God want?”
• And starts asking:
• “How do we preserve what we prefer?”

Diminished Evangelistic Passion

Once preference overtakes surrender, evangelistic passion almost always declines. Why?

• Because evangelism requires inconvenience.
• It requires sacrifice.
• It requires courage.
• It requires prioritizing lost people over congregational comfort.

Church, it is plain and simple: many of our churches have lost their passion for seeing people far from Jesus come to faith in Him.

We have increasingly outsourced gospel witness to:

• programs,
• pamphlets,
• events,
• and pastors.

Meanwhile, many believers no longer personally share their testimony or actively engage people far from God.
Research examining church growth patterns consistently shows that churches with declining evangelistic engagement also experience declining vitality, aging congregations, and weakening community connection.

Historically, evangelistically vibrant churches tend to demonstrate:

• stronger discipleship,
• younger membership,
• greater resilience,
• and healthier leadership pipelines.

Churches that lose evangelistic urgency eventually become preservation-oriented institutions rather than mission-oriented movements.

The Loss of Restorative Correction (Church Discipline)

Deficient discipleship and diminished mission eventually produce another serious problem:

Many churches no longer know how to confront sin, division, gossip, rebellion, or unhealthy behavior biblically and lovingly.

• Old Bill is as mean as a snake in church business meetings, his passive aggressive attacks and slanderous speculation are never confronted-just excused because that’s just how he’s always been. 
• Sister Susie, who has been rocking babies in the nursery for years, spins webs of gossip and division. 
• The church secretary (also a church member) is given a pass because of her longevity and sacrifice during difficult days of the church’s history, yet is not called to account over her regular undermining of the past four Pastors. 

Everyone sees it, thinks it's not right but isn’t sure what to do. 
So instead, they avoid correction altogether.

But avoiding correction is not compassion.
It is neglect.

Church consulting and church health research consistently identify unresolved conflict, accountability avoidance, and informal power structures as major contributors to congregational decline.

When churches refuse to address dysfunction:

• unhealthy people gain influence,
• fear governs conversations,
• gossip replaces truth-telling,
• and leaders become hesitant to lead clearly.

A church that cannot correct cannot remain healthy for long.

Restorative correction is not about domination.
It is about discipleship.
It is about loving one another enough to call each other back to faithfulness before damage deepens.

The Rejection of Pastoral Authority

This is often where the progression culminates.
When discipleship is weak, preference is elevated, evangelistic passion declines, and correction disappears, pastoral authority becomes the next casualty.

Pastors are welcomed as:

• encouragers,
• counselors,
• ceremonial leaders,
• and weekly communicators.

But when they attempt to:

• lead,
• confront,
• challenge,
• correct,
• or guide the church toward costly obedience,

resistance rises quickly.

Research increasingly points to declining trust in institutions and spiritual authority structures across American Christianity.

But this issue must be framed carefully.
This is not an argument for authoritarianism.

Biblical pastoral authority is not domination, ego, or control.
It is shepherding under the authority of Christ and His Word.

Yet many churches today do not want shepherds.
They want pulpiters to tickle their ears and chaplains for their preferences.

And when a church becomes governed by preference rather than surrender, faithful pastoral leadership will eventually feel threatening.

The Progression Should Cause Alarm

The progression is not random.

It follows a deeply coherent spiritual and organizational pattern.

• Deficient discipleship creates spiritually immature believers.
• Spiritually immature believers elevate preference over surrender.
• Preference-driven churches lose evangelistic urgency because mission requires sacrifice.
• Churches without mission become internally focused and resistant to correction.
• Churches resistant to correction eventually reject pastoral authority itself.

That progression is coherent spiritually, organizationally, and sociologically.

And frankly, this explains the real and present danger facing the stability of our Convention of Churches, we should be sounding the alarm bells over these things.

Final Word

The greatest threats facing many churches in our convention are not primarily cultural, political, or demographic. 
The greatest threats to the Churches in our Convention are not what the prominent leaders are putting forth. 

Unless we diagnose our threats honestly and accurately, we will continue treating symptoms  or chasing the enemy du jour while the deeper disease spreads. 

What do we need? How can it be remedied? 

Faithful local shepherds, informed prominent leaders, real strategies (both spiritual and strategic) praying and leading together in unity addressing the real threats.

Pastos Shepherding well, developing Disciples who will inhabit and lead Churches willing to ask:
​

• What does God want for us?
• What does His Word say?
• What does the life of Jesus require of us?
• Are we willing to surrender our preferences?
• Are we willing to receive correction?
• Are we willing to follow faithful leadership?
• Are we willing to recover our burden for people far from God?

When a Convention of Churches humbles themselves before the Lord, acknowledges the truth about their true condition, renews its commitment to mission, and submits itself again to Christ and His Word, an enduring vital and vibrant church will emerge.

​

The Big Shift This Week
This week’s emerging trend is not about church growth. It is about community credibility.

Across multiple revitalization conversations, outreach reports, and leadership discussions, churches are rediscovering that the communities around them are not asking first whether a church is impressive. They are asking whether a church is present, useful, trustworthy, and engaged.

That distinction matters.
For years, many struggling churches focused internally on survival metrics:

• attendance,
• finances,
• staffing,
• facilities,
• and worship preferences.

But some of the healthiest revitalization stories surfacing right now are coming from churches that turned outward before they became strong again internally.

That is counterintuitive.

In many cases, outward engagement actually became the catalyst for internal renewal.

Karl Vaters recently highlighted how smaller churches often underestimate the value they already bring to their communities because they compare themselves to larger ministry models. Meanwhile, outreach leaders around the country are reporting that local service, neighborhood presence, and relational ministry continue to outperform attractional programming in communities increasingly skeptical of institutions.

The lesson is becoming difficult to ignore:

• Churches do not revitalize by becoming more impressive.
• They revitalize by becoming more connected.

Trends Leaders Should Watch

1. Hyperlocal ministry is outperforming generic programming
Many churches are discovering that broad, polished ministry offerings are less effective than focused local engagement.

Examples include:

• school partnerships,
• food distribution,
• recovery ministries,
• foster care support,
• neighborhood prayer walking,
• immigrant assistance,
• and community resource connections.

These ministries are not glamorous. But they build trust.
Outreach leaders continue emphasizing that post-pandemic ministry effectiveness is increasingly relational and geographically rooted. Churches trying to “market” their way back to health are often frustrated. Churches becoming deeply useful to their communities are seeing slower but more durable momentum.
Revitalization leaders should pay attention to whether a church is known in its ZIP code for service or simply known by its own members.

2. Smaller churches are rejecting “big church shame”

Karl Vaters continues addressing one of the most damaging assumptions in modern church culture: the idea that smaller churches are failed larger churches.
That mindset has quietly exhausted thousands of pastors.

Many leaders are beginning to recover healthier definitions of faithfulness, sustainability, and impact. Instead of obsessing over scale, smaller churches are focusing on:

• congregational care,
• local relationships,
• volunteer mobilization,
• discipleship depth,
• and realistic ministry rhythms.

Ironically, those priorities often create healthier churches long term than growth-chasing strategies that overwhelm leadership systems.

The healthiest small churches right now are not apologizing for being small. They are maximizing being local.

3. Outreach and discipleship are reconnecting

One unhealthy ministry split of the last decade was treating outreach and discipleship as separate categories.
That divide is beginning to collapse.
Churches seeing meaningful renewal are increasingly integrating:

• mission engagement,
• spiritual formation,
• leadership development,
• and community service.

In other words, outreach is no longer merely a church growth strategy. It is becoming a discipleship pathway.
Serving together is forming people spiritually.

This is especially important for declining churches where members may have spent years consuming ministry rather than participating in mission. Shared outward focus often changes congregational culture faster than internal teaching alone.

4. Revitalization leaders are talking more about emotional health

Another emerging theme this week is leadership sustainability.

Pastors and revitalization leaders are increasingly acknowledging:

• chronic fatigue,
• conflict trauma,
• unrealistic expectations,
• and emotional isolation.

For years, turnaround culture often rewarded over-functioning leaders who carried entire congregations on their backs.

​That model is cracking.

Healthy revitalization conversations are now emphasizing:

• shared leadership,
• emotional resilience,
• boundaries,
• coaching,
• peer networks,
• and slower sustainable change.

The shift matters because burned-out pastors rarely lead healthy long-term renewal.

What’s Overhyped
The most overhyped strategy right now is the belief that rebranding alone creates revitalization.

New logos, modern websites, stage renovations, and social media upgrades may help perception temporarily, but cosmetic change without cultural change rarely lasts.

Communities eventually figure out whether a church has truly changed or simply refreshed its appearance.
Real revitalization usually looks less dramatic than social media makes it appear:

• difficult conversations,
• leadership repentance,
• governance clarity,
• restored trust,
• volunteer development,
• patient discipleship,
• and steady community presence.

That work is slower.
But it is far more durable.

Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists
The greatest opportunity for churches right now is rebuilding relational capital inside and outside the congregation.

Churches that thrive over the next decade will likely be churches where:

• neighbors are known personally,
• members are mobilized consistently,
• leaders are developed intentionally,
• conflict is addressed honestly,
• and ministry feels accessible rather than performative.

In many communities, churches still possess enormous goodwill potential. But that trust must be stewarded carefully and relationally.

This creates a major opportunity for associations, networks, and revitalization leaders.
Churches often do not need someone to impress them.
They need someone to guide them patiently through reality.

That means:

• honest assessments,
• practical coaching,
• contextual solutions,
• leadership pipelines,
• and sustainable ministry systems.

Renewal may look less like a dramatic comeback and more like churches quietly becoming healthy again.
And honestly, that may be exactly what this moment requires.

Sources

• Karl Vaters — Small Church Essentials and current leadership articles
• Outreach Magazine — community engagement and evangelism trends
• NAMB Replant resources and associational revitalization conversations
• Thom Rainer — church health and organizational sustainability
• Carey Nieuwhof leadership commentary
• BobBickford.com revitalization and partnership reflections

Partnerships between healthy churches and struggling churches may become one of the most important kingdom strategies of the next generation.

But not every struggling church is ready for partnership.

And healthy churches must learn the difference between a church that wants relief and a church that is actually ready for renewal.

Those are not the same thing.

From the front lines of church revitalization and replanting, I can tell you plainly:

• Some churches want help without change.
• Some want resources without accountability.
• Some want survival without repentance.

I described these churches in a previous post

But others have reached a different place.

They have stopped blaming demographics, culture, younger generations, or the neighborhood. They are beginning to face reality honestly. They are acknowledging mission drift, leadership failures, unhealthy systems, fear-based decision making, inward focus, and years of decline.

Those churches are different.
Those churches may be ready for partnership.

The question healthy churches must ask is not simply: “Can we help?”
The better question is: “Are they truly ready?”

Because partnership without readiness usually creates frustration, conflict, and disappointment for everyone involved.
So how can a healthy church discern whether another church is truly ready for renewal partnership?

1. They Have Moved From Excuses to Ownership

A church ready for renewal stops explaining away decline and starts owning responsibility.

That does not mean every problem was self-inflicted. Communities change. Neighborhoods shift. Economic realities matter.

But renewal begins when churches stop acting like victims and begin asking: “What must we repent of?”

Churches unwilling to confront reality are usually not ready for meaningful partnership.

2. They Are Open to New Leadership 

One of the clearest indicators of readiness is humility.

A church pursuing renewal no longer insists on absolute control while asking others to supply resources.
Instead, they become willing to:

• receive coaching
• invite outside assessment
• reform unhealthy systems
• accept new leadership
• reform governance structures
• allow new voices into the room

Healthy churches should look for evidence that the congregation is genuinely willing to listen, adapt, and change.

Not perfectly.
But honestly.

3. They Care More About Mission Than Preservation

A church ready for partnership begins shifting from institutional preservation toward kingdom mission.
That is a major turning point.

The conversation changes from:
“How do we save our church?”
to:
“How do we best steward this church for the Kingdom?”

That may involve revitalization.
It may involve replanting.
It may involve merger, fostering, or adoption.

Churches prepared for renewal begin prioritizing mission over nostalgia.

4. They Understand Renewal Will Be Painful

Churches ready for partnership stop looking for quick fixes. They understand renewal is slow, relational, and often painful.

There will be setbacks.
There will be difficult conversations.
There will be tension between legacy and future vision.
There will be moments when progress feels painfully slow.

Healthy churches should ask:

• Are they prepared for long-term work?
• Are they emotionally ready for difficult conversations?
• Are they willing to endure discomfort for the sake of renewal?
• Are they prepared to rebuild trust over time?

Renewal is not clean, quick, or linear. It is often one step forward and two hard conversations later.

5. They Are Ready for the Right Kind of Pastor

One of the clearest signs a church is ready for renewal is that they are willing to embrace the right kind of shepherd for the season ahead.

Renewal pastors are different.
A declining church does not simply need a preacher, caretaker, or program manager. It needs a visionary shepherd.

A renewal pastor must possess:

• vision strong enough to see what the church could become
• tactical patience to move people carefully without surrendering direction
• multi-generational affinity to love both legacy members and new people
• emotional resilience under criticism and resistance
• humility without weakness
• courage without arrogance
• grit to stay when things become difficult

Most importantly, the right pastor is committed to press, lead, and patiently shepherd a congregation toward health without giving in or giving up.

That kind of leadership matters because renewal takes longer than most churches expect.

Some churches sabotage renewal because they hire pastors hoping for comfort instead of leadership.
Others cycle through pastors because they expect instant results.

Healthy partner churches should ask:

• Is this church ready to follow leadership?
• Are they willing to trust a shepherd through difficult transitions?
• Do they want real renewal or simply temporary stability?

A church unwilling to follow healthy leadership is usually not ready for renewal.

6. They Value People More Than Property

A church ready for partnership values people above buildings, history, and institutional identity.
Likewise, healthy partner churches must not approach struggling churches merely as opportunities to acquire facilities or expand influence.

A church is more than property.
It is a congregation of people with stories, sacrifices, wounds, and history.

Healthy partnerships honor legacy members while still embracing necessary change.

7. They Embrace a Biblical Definition of Success

Churches ready for renewal stop evaluating success merely through attendance numbers and budgets.
Those things matter.

But healthy churches begin caring more deeply about:

• restored trust
• disciple-making
• evangelistic engagement
• baptisms and conversions
• leadership health
• community impact
• prayer culture
• generosity
• spiritual maturity
• mission alignment

A church growing spiritually will eventually produce visible fruit.
But real renewal starts deeper than numbers.

Five Practical Ways Healthy Churches Can Partner With Renewing Churches

​Once a church demonstrates genuine readiness for renewal, healthy churches should move beyond encouragement alone and provide meaningful partnership support.

Here are five practical ways that can make an enormous difference.

1. Provide Partial Salary Support: One of the heaviest burdens on a renewing church is pastoral sustainability.

Ministry costs, insurance, housing, and family expenses create enormous pressure on renewal pastors, especially in churches already struggling financially.

Healthy churches can provide partial salary support for two to three years with clear accountability, milestones, and regular evaluation.

This gives a renewal pastor margin to lead patiently instead of constantly surviving financially.

If healthy churches truly want renewal to happen, they must help create sustainable conditions for leadership to remain long enough to work.

2. Help With Facility Upgrades: Declining churches often carry years of deferred maintenance, outdated spaces, poor signage, worn interiors, and neglected first impressions.

Many renewal-ready churches simply cannot afford necessary improvements.

Healthy churches can help by:

• funding strategic renovations
• sending volunteer work teams
• helping redesign ministry spaces
• improving signage and visibility
• modernizing children’s areas
• upgrading technology and safety systems

Facility improvements alone do not create renewal.

But neglected environments often communicate decline before a word is ever spoken.

3. Support Missional Outreach Efforts: Renewing churches must reconnect with their communities.

Healthy churches can help them move outward again through practical outreach support.

That may include:

• Vacation Bible School partnerships
• community festivals and fall parties
• sports camps
• block parties
• neighborhood service projects
• evangelism events
• school partnerships

Many declining churches lost momentum because they slowly turned inward.
Partnerships can help them rediscover external mission.

4. Provide Coaching for Ministry Leaders: Many struggling churches lack healthy leadership pipelines.

Healthy churches can provide coaching, encouragement, and practical development for:

• youth leaders
• children’s ministry leaders
• worship leaders
• small group leaders
• deacons and elders
• outreach teams

Sometimes what a renewing church needs most is not another program but someone willing to walk alongside leaders consistently.

Coaching creates confidence, clarity, and sustainability.

5. Strengthen Administrative and Operational Systems: Many declining churches are overwhelmed administratively.
Office systems, finances, communication, bookkeeping, websites, databases, and digital presence are often weak, outdated, or nonexistent.

Healthy churches can provide:

• administrative coaching
• bookkeeping support
• communication help
• website development
• financial systems guidance
• policy and process development
• office management assistance

Strong operational systems free leaders to focus on shepherding, discipleship, and mission instead of constant organizational chaos.

What Healthy Churches Must Understand: Partnership is not rescue work.
It is kingdom stewardship.

Healthy churches are not called to act as saviors.
They are called to serve.

And not every church will be ready.
Some remain defensive.
Some remain deeply divided.
Some are still unwilling to confront reality.
Some are simply out of time.

But others are finally prepared to repent, listen, change, and rebuild.
Those churches should not be left alone on an island.

They need courageous partners willing to enter the mess with humility, patience, truthfulness, generosity, and hope.

​Because the future of church renewal will not be built primarily through isolated churches struggling independently.

It will be built through kingdom partnerships grounded in honesty, repentance, courageous leadership, and shared mission.