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.

I work closely with declining and dying churches. I love them. I grieve for them.

Many were once thriving congregations filled with children, disciple-making, gospel witness, and meaningful community presence. But somewhere along the way, something changed.

First love was forsaken.
Leadership failed.
Mission drifted.
Conflict calcified.
The church slowly turned inward.

And now many of these congregations are facing the consequences of years—sometimes decades—of poor stewardship, resistance to change, and leadership mismanagement.

So eventually this thought occurs and the request comes: “We need another church to send us money and people.”

On the surface, that sounds reasonable. Declining churches do need resources. They do need people.

But here’s the problem: many churches asking for help are not asking because they want to join a greater Kingdom mission. They are asking because they do not want to die.

That’s understandable.
But it is not enough.

A church which is unwilling to change, a church that makes demands, a church that rejects solid counsel from multiple consultants and potential partners shouldn’t be bailed out. 

Why? Their own survival is a weak ambition.

The Kingdom question is not: “How do we preserve ourselves?”

The question is: “How do we contribute to the  mission of making Jesus known in our communities and to the ends of the earth?”

Those are very different questions.

Here’s what unhealthy churches often do: they consume the margin, energy, people, effort and prayer. All the while they reject any and all advice that presses them to face their reality. 

They want the people and finances of healthier churches without ever embracing the repentance and surrender necessary for real renewal.

They are consumers of kingdom assets instead of contributors to kingdom mission.

They drain outward-focused mission energy inward toward preserving their preferences, traditions, control structures, and legacy systems.

They say things like:

• “We want your help, but we keep control.”
• “We want your people, but our leaders still call the shots.”
• “We want your money, but nothing significant changes.”
• “We want to survive, but we don’t want to die to ourselves.”

That isn’t partnership. That’s dependency.

And when a struggling church approaches revitalization this way, it doesn’t just hurt itself. It limits the impact of the churches trying to help it.

Because resources that should be aimed outward—toward evangelism, disciple-making, church planting, community engagement, and Kingdom expansion—get redirected inward toward institutional preservation.

Healthy churches instinctively understand this. That’s why many are hesitant to send people and money into churches unwilling to surrender control, embrace change, or acknowledge the realities that brought them to decline in the first place.

Here’s the hard truth:
Some churches do not need rescuing first.
They need repentance first.

Until leaders are willing to honestly confront the failures, pride, fear, dysfunction, and inward focus that produced decline, outside support usually only delays the inevitable.

Resurrection in the Kingdom has always required death first.

And many churches want revival without surrender, renewal without repentance, and resurrection without a cross.
So what’s the solution for a church that approaches with one hand open, ready to receive help, while the other hand grips the controls tightly?

Tell them the truth.
Straight up.

“We are willing to help you. We would gladly invest people, resources, coaching, leadership, and prayer into your future. But you will have to surrender your leadership positions and your posture of control.”

That sounds harsh until you remember the alternative is simply enabling continued decline.

Declare this: “It has not gone well under the current leadership structures and culture. That is not said to shame anyone. It is simply reality."

Healthy churches and leaders are not called to humiliate struggling churches, but neither are they called to subsidize denial.

At some point, honesty becomes mercy.

So say plainly:

• Step down from controlling everything.
• Stop protecting positions and platforms.
• Stop measuring success by whether your preferred style survives.
• Stop making the goal “keep our doors open.”
• Commit to something greater than preserving your traditions and programming.

Grieve the right things.

• The lack of conversions.
• The absence of baptisms.
• The fact that your church has little Kingdom impact.

Stop criticizing churches that are actually reaching people, making disciples, baptizing converts, and engaging their communities. Many declining churches have become experts at critiquing the methods of others while producing little fruit themselves.

At some point, humility requires acknowledging the obvious: If every consultant, denominational leader, associational strategist, interim pastor, and potential partner church has been telling you the same thing for years, maybe they were not the problem.

Maybe the common denominator was your unwillingness to listen.

If so, confess it plainly: “We were prideful. We were defensive. We were in denial. We resisted what God was trying to tell us.”

That confession is not the end. That is the beginning.

Now, step aside.

Not because you are worthless, but Kingdom Advance is worth more than your control or position. Step aside, but don't leave. Join in the new effort so you can become part of the future work God wants to do instead of standing in the way of it.

If this article offends you, that may actually be a good sign.
It means your heart is still tender enough to feel conviction.
Let offense lead you to repentance.

My prayer is that the energy you've spent being offended would become energy directed toward prayer, surrender, and obedience.

And perhaps, by God’s grace, your church might once again experience genuine Kingdom growth.


​

Week ending May 9, 2026
A weekly roundup of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal insights and news.
Every week, I want to surface the signals that matter most for pastors, associational leaders, and renewal teams. The goal is not just to track news, but to notice what is shaping the work of revitalization, replanting, and church renewal on the ground.

This Week’s Big Signal
The clearest signal this week is that renewal activity is showing up in front-door ministry metrics before it shows up in institutional stability. The new 2025 SBC Annual Church Profile, released this week, shows higher baptisms, higher worship attendance, and higher small-group attendance, even while total membership, total churches, and church-type missions all declined. That is a meaningful pattern for renewal leaders: there is still spiritual receptivity and ministry momentum on the ground, but it is happening inside a thinner, more fragile church base. (Lifeway Research ACP summary, Baptist Press/AP coverage)

For pastors and associational leaders, this means the old question, “Are people still reachable?” is not the main problem this week. The more urgent question is whether churches have the health, leadership depth, and structure to convert openness into durable discipleship and congregational stability. Renewal work is not starting from zero interest. It is starting from mixed signals: renewed engagement, but weak organizational resilience.
One important qualifier: these gains should not be romanticized. Attendance growth does not erase closure pressure. Lifeway’s recent postmortem on lost SBC congregations found that 906 congregations active in 2023 were no longer active in 2024, with 712 disbanded or closed. So the hopeful indicators are real, but so is the churn. (Lifeway postmortem analysis)

Trends for Leaders to Notice
Younger adults are not simply “open”; they are showing up more often than older generations, but still not with weekly consistency. Barna’s latest work says Gen Z and Millennials are now the most frequent churchgoers among churched adults, averaging roughly 1.8 to 1.9 attendances per month. That matters because many revitalization conversations still assume the main challenge is attracting younger adults at all. The newer challenge is building discipleship pathways for people whose attendance is meaningful but intermittent. Leaders should notice that renewed interest without relational follow-through will not produce lasting renewal. (Barna church attendance data)

Associational and network-based replant structures are becoming more central to renewal strategy. NAMB’s 2026 AMS Replant Lab drew more than 250 leaders and framed associations as frontline renewal infrastructure, not just administrative bodies. The emphasis on practitioner-led training, team-based participation, and renewal partnerships suggests the field is maturing beyond one-pastor heroics toward systems that can help churches diagnose, intervene, and sustain change. Leaders should notice that the most serious renewal ecosystems are investing in repeatable processes, not just inspiration. (NAMB report, AMS Replant Lab page)

The formation gap is becoming more visible just as spiritual openness rises. Barna’s 2026 research shows stronger curiosity about faith, but also a major authority challenge: nearly one in three U.S. adults say spiritual advice from AI is as trustworthy as advice from a pastor, and only a small minority of pastors say they feel comfortable teaching about AI. At the same time, Lifeway’s 2025 State of Discipleship highlights that personal devotion remains uneven even among churchgoers. Leaders should notice that renewal is no longer just about restarting programs; it is about rebuilding credible spiritual formation in an environment where authority is diffuse and attention is fragmented. (Barna on faith and AI, Lifeway State of Discipleship)

A quieter but important pattern is that discipleship strategy is moving closer to the center of denominational conversation. Lifeway is putting free discipleship training in front of SBC leaders in June, signaling that leaders increasingly see unclear disciple-making systems, not just weak attendance, as a core issue. Leaders should notice that the field is shifting from “How do we get people back?” to “What kind of pathway are we actually inviting them into?” (Lifeway Discipleship Conference)

What’s Overhyped
The most overhyped narrative right now is that renewed attendance among younger adults automatically means broad revival or durable turnaround. The better reading is more restrained: there are credible signs of openness, especially among younger adults, but closure rates, membership decline, and weak formation patterns all suggest that interest has not yet become institutional renewal at scale. Excitement is warranted; triumphalism is not.

Where the Greatest Opportunity Exists
The greatest opportunity right now is not generic church growth. It is building conversion-to-discipleship pathways inside churches that are small, aging, or newly receptive but structurally weak. This is especially true in Southern Baptist and non-denominational settings where leaders may be seeing more spiritual conversations, more occasional returners, or better attendance, but do not yet have a clear process for moving people into community, doctrine, service, and mission.

That makes renewal teams and associational leaders unusually important this season. Churches do not only need encouragement; they need help with diagnosis, sequencing, and honest next steps. In practical terms, that means stronger assessment, clearer decision trees about revitalization versus replanting, and simpler disciple-making systems that work for people who are present two weekends a month rather than four.

My inference from this week’s sources is that the next 12 to 18 months will reward leaders who can hold realism and hope together. The churches most likely to see lasting fruit will not be the ones chasing a dramatic narrative. They will be the ones that face closure pressure honestly, steward fresh openness carefully, and build repeatable structures for prayer, leadership development, assimilation, and discipleship.

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: Lifeway 2025 SBC Annual Church Profile, Barna: Young Adults Lead a Resurgence in Church Attendance, NAMB: AMS Replant Lab Spurs Hope, Renewal for Dying Churches, Lifeway analysis of lost congregations, Barna: Insights on Tech, Media and Faith in 2026