Sermon Video: God's grace is not a license to sin - Jude 1-4

Jude, half-brother of Jesus (along with James "the just", the leader of the Jerusalem Church), begins his letter by speaking of the common salvation he shares along with those whom God has called, love, and kept for Jesus, a salvation that results in our being given mercy, peace, and love.  Unfortunately, Jude cannot continue writing about these uplifting topics as he must warn the recipients of the letter about individuals within the Church who have embrace a form of Gnosticism (apparently) that both denies Jesus Christ (probably by denying that he came in the flesh, see 1 John for a parallel) and bizarrely claims that God's grace which has been given to us is in fact a license to sin.  The Apostle Paul rejects this same line of thought in Romans 6, for how could God's grace take us further from God by encouraging us to continue to sin?  In addition, taking advantage of grace would be an insult to the blood of Christ, poured out for us, as well as a narrow focus upon our relationship with God being only about forgiveness of sins, rather than about total transformation that must begin here and now.  Lastly, any view of our relationship with God that tolerates the ongoing indulgence in sin is incompatible with the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who have been redeemed.  For reasons such as these, Jude warns his fellow believers against this dangerous notion.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Interaction with: "Keeping a church going is a tough cross to bear" by Peter Greene

In this morning's News-Herald/The Derrick is a column from Peter Greene, retired Franklin High School English teacher regarding the challenge of keeping the county's numerous churches going, in particular its number of massive (relative to our current population) church buildings.  The article ends with a call to attend tonight's forum that is being hosted here at First Baptist with the Oil Region Alliance, the Bridge Builders Community Foundation, and a national group called Sacred Places.  The meeting will discuss how to preserve sacred spaces through utilizing them as community resources, a function that the building here at First Baptist already performs, but one which we are eager to learn more about.  So please, join us tonight if you can.

In addition, Greene's article touches upon a number of topics related to church attendance and church growth, I'll quote the relevant portions below in bold and interact with them.

We've had a real estate problem in Venango County for a while.  We have too much excess capacity, too many buildings with too much space, built in a time when the county had many thousands more people than it does now.

This is true across the board in real estate: residential, commercial, educational, and sacred.  The population drop since the height of the oil boom has been remarkable, resulting in a population downward trend that must bottom out at some point, but hasn't yet.  It is thus inevitable that the county contain "too many" churches, unless the % of people within the county who attend church were to have risen as the population declines, it hasn't.  Some churches have closed, as evidenced by the consolidation in Oil City of the Catholic parishes from five to one, but most remain open.  Within two miles of my office in downtown Franklin there are 18 churches, and while that includes several in small buildings, it also includes the sizable buildings of First Baptist, St. Patrick's, First UMC, Christ UMC, St. John's Episcopal, First Presbyterian, and Atlantic Ave. United Brethren.

Gallup Poll shows that church membership hung around 70 percent from 1938 until 1996, then dropped off a cliff, landing at 50 percent in 2018...young folks are the most likely to be unchurched these days.

That this is a trend isn't news to anyone involved in church ministry.  However, here in our county the affects of it are harder to gauge because so many of this community's young people leave the area for college and don't return.  Thus churches in Venango County (and much of rural America) must face the prospect of lesser proportions of the younger generations simply because their community's population is trending that way anyway.  Once again, in order to have as many people in their 20's or 30's in our church as we have people in their 60's or 70's, we would have to be reaching a significantly higher percentage of that target population.

There are a gazillion explanations out there.  Some argue that the mainstream churches lost ground because they got too wrapped up in social causes.

This is the go-to explanation from conservative churches regarding the trends within liberal churches (using those terms despite the inevitable comparison to politics, here they rather reflect theological perspectives, although the two tend to bleed together).  To the extent that any church or denomination has walked away from the historic creeds and teachings of the Church, and/or replaced the primary focus of the Church (the proclamation of the Gospel and the making of disciples) with unrelated causes, that explanation seems to have traction.  If what once brought people to Church, the worship of God and the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, is no longer relevant to what a church is doing, why exactly would people go there?  I have not, however, experienced this with the 'liberal' churches here in Venango County, instead I've found authentic and passionate commitment to the Gospel at, for example, St. John's Episcopal Church (with whom we partner for the Shepherd's Green Food Pantry).

Others argue that more conservative religious voices have turned off young folks with their political involvement.

I have certainly argued about the danger of mixing religion and politics, describing it as an unequal marriage that will corrupt the Church with the pragmatism (and win-at-all-cost) of politics rather than impacting politics with the morality of Christianity.  In 1999, Pastor Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas warned about the failures of the Moral Majority in their book, Blinded by Might but unfortunately that warning has not been heeded and things have grown much worse.  Examples of my writings on this include: A rejection of a One-Party Church, and pastors as political operatives and The Culture War rages on; the Church's role in it is toxic.

Oddly enough, those arguments represent two sides of the old saying, "When you mix religion and politics, you get politics."

And this is where it gets dicey.  'Liberal' churches and their leaders decry the politics of 'Conservative' churches and their leaders, and vice versa, without both sides realizing that they are doing the same things, just from a different perspective.  For example: the mixing of the Gospel with socialism is just as dangerous as the mixing of the Gospel with free-market capitalism.  That sentence might upset some of you because you hate one of those economic systems but love the other, but from a Christian Worldview that honors the teachings of the Apostles and Church History, there can be no other conclusion.  The Gospel cannot be mixed with our economic, social, or political viewpoints and remain the Gospel.  This is a dilemma as old as the first generation of the Church, one that our ancestors in the faith struggled mightily to not be overcome by (See for example their failure: The Thirty Years War), and one that endures to this day.  In the end, a Republican Gospel is just as much of an anathema as a Democrat Gospel, both must be rejected.  In this I am somewhat fortunate, as the American Baptist Churches have a history of supporting the separation of Church and State.  However, with the 'liberal' and 'conservative' Church in America leaning heavily in the direction of greater involvement in politics, I've often felt like a 'voice calling out in the wilderness' on this issue.

Locally, churches have had nowhere to go over the last century but down.  Churches like First Baptist in Franklin were built by wealthy patrons who help(ed) both raise the building and fill it.  General Miller expected his employees to be in church Sunday morning, and he sweetened the pot with features like a nationally respected orchestra.  The church was filled to overflowing, though how many were there because of deep religious commitment is open to debate.

First off, thanks for the shout out in the newspaper to First Baptist.  It is certainly true that First Baptist was overflowing 100+ years ago.  We have Sunday School attendance books that show weeks with 1,000+ in attendance between the various classes for men, women, and children.  General Miller taught his afternoon class for decades, it would be fascinating to me to learn what those classes consisted of.  About half of the cost of the 1,800 seat addition that was completed in 1904 (it was all part of a 3/4 circle sanctuary then, now that  mega-sanctuary addition is a recreation area and auditorium) was borne by Charles Miller personally.  Whatever else he was, Charles Miller was a titan in this church's history, and the primary reason why we have this big, and beautiful, building.  I've also been told that Charles paid his workers, either a nickel or a dime, to come to church each week.  That story is ubiquitous here in Venango County, leading me to believe that it has some basis in truth, although no records from the time attest to it.  How genuine was that church attendance?  How much of it was simply giving in to social pressure?  We have no way of knowing, although the social pressure thing has certainly decreased in recent generations.

If we still had 1,000+ people here on Sundays it would now represent 15% of Franklin's total population, an amazing amount.  That ship, however, sailed a long time ago, as the impressive numbers here at the turn of the 20th century faded as the century wore on.  In theory, there is a large number of people who could walk here to church on Sunday (only a few do, most who attend here live miles away), although parking is an issue at downtown churches (all across the country), a limitation that evidently didn't stop our ancestors from getting here (in part utilizing Franklin's trolley system, yes, we had trolley lines back then) .

Growing a church in this area is a special challenge.  There are few "new" people moving in to the area and looking for a new church home, and the ranks of the unchurched who can be won to the faith - well, that's a pretty shallow pool too.  So there are only a couple of ways to grow a church.

It is indeed easier to grow a church when new people are moving to the area and one need not increase the % of various demographics being reached to still grow.  It is much harder to grown when the population is shrinking.  What about the unchurched? (FYI, I keep getting that red line below 'unchurched' that tells me it isn't a real word as far as the computer is concerned, as a former English teacher myself, I wonder if it bothered Peter while he was typing his column).  They are certainly the key to this whole issue.  If the churches in Venango County don't find a way to get more people to become a part of the church who are not currently, we will have to contend in this next decade or so with a number of additional church closures.  As the Baby Boomers leave us, what will be left behind?  To reach the unchurched is a serious challenge.  There are reasons why certain individuals and certain families have no connection to a church, those reasons are not easy to overcome.  From an outside perspective the challenge seems insurmountable.  From the inside it looks really tough too.  In the past decade our church has helped hundreds of people through the Central Help Fund and various other forms of assistance, the vast majority of whom are unchurched.  In response, one of them came to church, once, and although many have promised while asking for help that they would come to church, they haven't.  Results like that are disheartening (and topics of discussions at our Franklin ministerium meetings), but there is a bigger picture.  We, a Christians, are planters of seeds, not the one who makes them grow.  I disagree with Peter Greene that the ranks of the unchurched who can be won to the faith are a shallow pool, but at the same time I do not believe that the answer to that is in my hands.  The Holy Spirit can bring revival to our community, turning stony soil into fertile ground, bringing forth new life from seeds that were planted long ago.  I don't know if that blessing is coming, God's people have certainly prayed for it, but it is not for us to determine the outpouring of God's grace.  Until then, our efforts to show the love of Christ to the unchurched will continue, whatever the results may be.

One is to gather up the young folks.  Use video games, parties, fun trips - anything that gets them in the door.  They'll bring their friends, and maybe their families, but so many young people grow up to leave the area that this approach gives limited returns.

Going after the young is the #1 Church Growth approach.  Churches with full bands and a pastor wearing hipster jeans have cornered this market, but as Peter sees clearly, in a rural community this process is never-ending, as the teens of today are tomorrow's ex-Venango County residents.  In addition, in a town like Franklin, there can be only one or two "cool" churches where the teens hang out.  Today they are Atlantic Ave UB and Christ UMC, a generation ago they were different churches.  Reaching the young people certainly has value, but it can only be one piece of the puzzle, especially for the rest of us.

The other approach is to grab disaffected churchgoers who just left their old church because something there upset them.  Some local churches used to specialize in this type of recruitment, just as some churchgoers have a long line of abandoned churches stretched out behind them.

Yeah, this is definitely true.  I'm not sure which local church specialized in sheep stealing back in the day (I've been in this community 9 years now {I know, right} but Peter Greene has been here longer), but as a pastor I can tell you that none of us is happy with a pastor who builds his church by recruiting people from other churches.  The Kingdom of God doesn't grow a bit when people simply swap churches.  Of the growth that we've had since my arrival, a majority have been through people who used to go somewhere else (most were are the time, however, not attending), although we have had the joy of adding a few people 'from the outside'.  I have not, however, nor would I, encouraged people to leave their church to come to mine.  The opposite is actually how I operate.  When I speak with people in need (of counsel or assistance) I recommend to them that they become connected with a church in their neighborhood, personally recommending churches and pastors by name that I know will be a good home for that person.  

And yes, there are a number of people in our community who are on a church-hopping merry-go-round.  The pastors know who they are, aren't surprised when they leave, and won't be surprised years later when they come back around.  It is a recent phenomenon, one that was not possible in the old village parish church days, but one that has a negative affect upon the Church as a whole.  If people don't take ownership of their local church, if they don't invest themselves in it, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, they'll never become the pillars upon which the next generation of the church needs to be built.  Sometimes it is necessary to leave a church, to walk away from a toxic situation, but that's a rarity, not the real reason why church loyalty has plummeted in recent decades.  Instead, churches are now viewed, by many, as a service provider, much like any other business, and if the service you receive from that church isn't up to your expectations, drop them just like you did AT&T or Chevrolet.  This is, of course, the opposite viewpoint from what it ought to be.  A church is a place where you give to the work of the Kingdom; you will certainly receive great blessings through that connection, but that isn't the reason why you should be there.  We live in a consumer culture, where advertisements try to lure you away from the businesses you utilize now each day; that attitude, when applied to the Church, is toxic.

Is there some secret to recruiting and retaining church members?  If somebody knew it, I'm sure they'd be making a mint running a church consulting service.

Welcome to Christian ministry.  The number of books, seminars, and consulting businesses that have grown up around the question of Church Growth are astounding.  It seems like the only thing preventing us from being a multi-site mega-church is our failure to follow the 7 easy steps outlined in the latest craze.  There are some good resources, and some useful habits and ideas that churches ought to adopt, but no magic bullet.  There is, by the way, a lot of money flowing in the Church Growth consulting field, distinguishing between the genuine ministries with a passion for the Gospel, and the ones just making money is no small task.

In the meantime, churches might try mastering some of the basics.

Amen and amen.  Focus on what church is supposed to be, on doing things the right way for the right reasons, and let God be responsible (as he already is) for the results.  Worship, Pray, Love, Serve, Share.

Don't announce that certain people aren't welcome there.

Absolutely, I'm not sure what type of 'announcement' he has in mind, but it is foolhardy in the extreme to put forth the impression that the Gospel isn't for a particular subset of 'tax collectors and sinners' to which your church objects.  All have sinned, all are lost, all need a Savior.  Our doors are open to anyone, from any background, who wants to hear the Gospel.  In the long-run, churches do need to integrate into their community people who are willing to accept the teachings of God's Word and live accordingly, but the call of the Gospel needs to go out to everyone

Act as if you believe what you claim to believe.

Few things get under my skin as quickly as Christian hypocrisy.  We, that is all of us in the American 21st century Church, have done a poor job of convincing the world that we take our own beliefs seriously.  The number of scandals related to immoral church leaders is sickening, we must do better.  Oddly enough, I was preaching about this very topic last Sunday: Sermon Video: The Dark Side of Church Leadership 

Be welcoming without being creepy.
There's a sweet spot there that isn't that hard to find.  As far as I can tell, our churches are doing a pretty good job on this front.  But yeah, avoid creepy.

And maybe ask yourself why, exactly, you want to recruit new members.
A good question.  "So that we survive as a church" isn't a good enough answer, even if it is an honest one.  The correct answer is, "Because this is what Jesus told us to do."  We are in the business of replicating in the lives of others what God has done in our lives (through the power of the Holy Spirit).  Why?  #1  For God's glory.  #2  Because it is what people need #3  Because we can't help but share the love, joy, and peace that we've found with others.

But in the meantime, Venango County is loaded with big, beautiful, underused churches that are a financial burden to their congregation.  We're in a place where having your giant aging church burn down can be one of the best things for its long-term health.
Sadly I've heard this sentiment before from a fellow ABC pastor who bemoaned that our church building hadn't burned down a long time ago.  There is no doubt that a bigger building than your congregation needs is a resource drain, but it is also an opportunity.  Our church isn't 'underused' despite our congregation being a tiny fraction of its peak 100 years ago, thankfully our board and congregation have made it a priority to invite local non-profits and community service providers to use our space Monday through Saturday {For example: AA, MSM, Jamie's Kids, Girl Scouts, Celebrate Recovery, AARP tax prep, etc.}
Each day as I walk from the parsonage, circa 1881, into the church building, retaining almost all of its architectural and artistic beauty from 1904, it uplifts my spirit and encourages me, reminding me of the legacy that we are a part of.  If this building were to burn down, not only would it be a travesty to Franklin's historic district, our heritage and culture, it would be a brutal loss of beauty in its own right.  We can keep this church going, in this building, for generations to come.  We can continue the legacy of Charles Miller (and countless others) who brought us to this point from the church's founding in 1867, through its 31 pastors, to this present day.

I'll see you at tonight's meeting.

Sermon Video: The Dark Side of Church Leadership - 3 John 9-14

Having commended Gaius for showing hospitality to the missionaries/teachers that the Apostle John had sent, John next turns his attention to that same church's leader, Diotrephes, who rather than being cooperative has allowed his ego to warp him into opposition toward the work of the Gospel.  Here we see what happens when those in leadership in the Church embrace immorality, a "my way or the highway" mentality, or a "win at all costs" mantra.  The destruction such leadership can threaten the very life of a local church.  It is unacceptable for any disciple of Jesus Christ to "walk in darkness" rather than exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, but when it comes from those in authority the consequences can be far reaching.  In the end, there is no room in Church leadership for dictators or egomaniacs, no space for immoral and unethical people, for the Bride of Christ's reputation must not be besmirched on this way, and the work of the Gospel is far to important to be squandered by the sinfulness of God's people.

To watch the video, click on the link below:

Deals with the Devil don't get any better

When caught between a rock and a hard place, the former smuggler/gambler/scoundrel Lando Calrissian (played by Billy Dee Williams) in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back makes what he thinks is an acceptable, albeit costly, deal with the Evil Empire's enforcer, Darth Vader.  Unfortunately for Lando, the colony he administers (Cloud City), and the 'guests' he bargained to save, Princess Leia and Chewbacca, Darth Vader quickly decides to alter the deal.  In addition to the original cost of giving Lando's friend, Han Solo, over to a bounty hunter, Vader now demands that Leia and Chewbacca be given to his custody as well.  When Lando objects, Vader responds with the infamous line, "I am altering the deal.  Pray I don't alter it any further."  Aside from a chilling moment in a movie masterpiece (Yes, Empire is the best SW movie, although A New Hope is right behind it), this interaction demonstrates an unalterable truth about deals and bargains made with evil: they only get worse.
This is not a new dramatic theme, the playwright Christopher Marlowe said much the same thing in his classic 1592 play, The Tragical History of the Life and Death of Doctor Faustus, wherein the title character makes a literal deal with the devil, only to have it predictably unravel to his final damnation.  To the Christian (or Jewish) theologian, the notion that any pact/deal made with an evil entity, or any path laid out that will utilize evil as a means to an end, will inevitably end in one's own corruption and destruction is no surprise at all.  What else could the outcome be?  The reason for this is simple, rebellion against God only has one outcome: self-destruction.

Proverbs 10:16 New International Version (NIV)
16 The wages of the righteous is life,
    but the earnings of the wicked are sin and death.
James 1:15 New International Version (NIV)
Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.
Romans 6:16 New International Version (NIV)

16 Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?

Why is there no other outcome?  Once again the answer is straightforward: God is the sole source of holiness, goodness, and life.  All those who turn from that source, who choose instead to strike out on their own, and who offer God no gratitude or allegiance, will in turn reap the true nature of what that cry for independence has earned.  This is not a question of God's mercy, for God has offered salvation to humanity, a way to be redeemed and not perish, but rather a question of reality.  Apart from God, there is no life.  How could God make it otherwise?  And more importantly, God could not do such an act of evil as to make a path 'work out' that leads those he has created away from him.
What is true in the grand scheme, that is the direction and outcome of our lives, is true along the way as well.  If we cannot end a journey away from God with anything but self-destruction, nor can we hope to have success when choosing to live against the Law of God between here and there.  The standard by which our whole lives are judged (the holiness and righteousness of God), is the same standard by which each episode within those lives are judged.  What is true for the whole is true for the parts as well.  To make a 'deal with the devil', even if one considers it to be only a short-term deal, is to embrace folly.  Deals with evil are always worse than they present themselves to be, and they only go downhill from there, inevitably.

While the "nones" are growing, so are those who say they are "born again".

In a recent article {More Non-Evangelicals Are Calling Themselves Born Again A growing share of mainline Protestants and Catholics have taken on the once-distinctive label over the past three decades. by Ryan Burge}, Christianity Today makes note of an interesting, and somewhat unexpected given the doom & gloom mood that seems fairly common concerning Christianity in America, trend of steady growth, across all Christian segments, of those who answer affirmative to this question in the General Social Survey (GSS): “Would you say you have been ‘born again’ or have had a ‘born again’ experience—that is, a turning point in your life when you committed yourself to Christ?”  In other words, while much attention (rightfully) has been paid to the steady rise of those who claim "none" as their religious affiliation, especially among younger Americans, at the same time a growing percentage of Evangelicals, Mainline Protestants, and Catholics, across racial lines, are self-identifying as being people who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ.  The religious landscape in America is certainly changing, but in more than one direction.

One issue with Burge's reporting before pondering the larger question of why and what it might mean for the future: "The surprise comes with mainline Protestants, who have gone from 28 percent identifying as born again to 40 percent. And the portion of born-again Catholics has doubled (from 14% to 28%). Those increases are especially striking because neither tradition teaches that a born-again conversion is a necessary component of their faith."  This is over-simplification at best, misleading (in an insulting way) at worst.  Not every Christian community uses the same words and phrases in the same way.  If you ask a Catholic, "Are you born again?"  The answer is more likely to be 'no' than if you asked that same Catholic, "Have you made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ?"  Does that mean that the Catholic Church doesn't teach the necessity of individuals making a commitment to Jesus Christ?  Hardly they require it before any person can fully participate in the community, how else does one explain the milestones a young Catholic (or adult convert) goes through heading toward confirmation and first communion?  Similar questions of phraseology could be applied to other non-evangelical Protestant denominations.  The original survey question, first asked in 1988, was written from an Evangelical Protestant perspective, and likely confused many of the initial respondents from other Christian perspectives.  Over the years, as the Culture Wars continued to rage, and the phrase "born again" became more a part of the cultural vernacular, it would not be surprising to see the number of those who answer the survey with a 'yes' increase as a result.  Is that what's going on here or are deeper issues at work?

"Over the years, being born again may have evolved from being seen as a distinctive for evangelical Protestantism to a way to suggest that they are particularly active in their faith. Across Christian traditions, the more often a person attends church, the more likely they are to say they have had a born-again experience, regardless of their affiliation."  This is a more likely explanation than the previous statement implying that Mainline Protestants and Catholics just don't teach the need for conversion.


These charts are the heart of the story, and tell the most important tale.
Some observations on the chart relating church attendance to self-identification as being "born again": (1) How is it that 50% of those who call themselves evangelicals and African-American Protestants, who NEVER go to church, still think that they're 'born again'?  That's an absurdly high number or people who evidently have no real understanding of what is required of a disciple of Jesus Christ, because being a part of the body of Christ, serving the church and being under the tutelage of the Word of God isn't apparently a priority to that 50% who still identify themselves as being both 'born again' and belonging to one of those two groups without actually going to church.  For Catholics and Mainline Protestants the numbers are less than 20% among those who never go to church, still higher than we should be comfortable with, but not the over-inflated 50%. (2) Going to church matters!  I'm of course biased on this view, being an ordained minister called to lead a church, but that is what the Scriptures proclaim, and what 2,000 years of Church history attest, so I don't feel like I'm on shaky ground here in asserting the necessity of an individual Christian's (or 'Christian' as the case may be for those not-yet converted) connection to a local church.  (3) Going to church more matters more than going to church less.  That's a confusing sentence, but the charts seems fairly clear: those who go to church more regularly are more likely to have claimed to have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ than those who go to church only infrequently.  Go to church!  No, Christmas and Easter are not sufficient.  {Please come then if you don't go otherwise to hear about the Advent of Christ and then about his death and resurrection, those are key parts of God's redemptive story (all pastors are encouraged to see visitors at the holidays, they just want to see them more than that).}



First off, I have no love for the use of the term 'literal' when talking about the Bible; few words are more abused and less well understood.  Also, why was this question written to make a dichotomy between 'inspired' and 'literal'?  How can Scripture be the inspired but not 'literal' (ouch, it pains me to use it even with 'quotes') words of God? {See my 3 part discourse on the Bible to learn more about revelation, inspiration, interpretation, etc. What Every Christian Should Know About: The Bible}  Aside from the structural issues with the way this question was written, the data here is also interesting.  The more often people attend church, the more likely they are to honor the authority of God's Word (whether calling it 'inspired' or 'literal') and the less likely they are to consider it to be simply 'written by men'.  Not surprisingly, those who know more about God's Word, who hear it preached to them more regularly, and who place themselves under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, respond by embracing it.  Those who avoid the fellowship of God's people, who don't prioritize worship of God, tend to view God's Word with less reverence.  None of this is surprising to anyone working in vocational ministry.  Not surprising at all.
"It would appear that the term “born again” has evolved somewhat among the American public. What used to be seen as a touchstone experience for many evangelicals who went forward at a revival, youth camp, or especially moving Sunday worship service, now seems to mean something more. In essence, the word seems to have been adopted by people of other faith traditions as a way to indicate that they are a devout believer. The data suggests that individuals take the term to mean that faith plays an important role in their life and their religious activity serves more than a social purpose."  To quote my former college professor at Cornerstone University, Prof. Andy Smith: "Word usage determines word meaning."  The term 'born again' has evolved.  What was once a technical term that baffled many of the survey takers in the 1980's has now become a more general term that more broadly reflects its original biblical meaning: devout believer.  It doesn't take a recitation of a 'sinner's prayer' to become a Christian, it takes a changed heart, an act of faith, that comes from the calling of the Holy Spirit and results in a life whose direction has changed and results in the ongoing display of the Fruit of the Spirit.  It is a good thing if people in the Church are more focused on having one's life direction changed than on having a single experience.
What then does all of this mean?  The short version is this: The decline of the 'Christian American' culture is asking casual people to make a choice.  It isn't as easy as it used to be to float along in a Christian inspired river without making your own commitment.  When the change required of conversion becomes more stark, and the counter-cultural cost of discipleship becomes more evident, those who never go to church, but consider themselves to be 'Christians', shrink, while those who both openly reject Christianity/The Church, and those who openly embrace it, gain numbers.  As these trends continue, the commonalities between committed members of Christian communities will only grow more clear, the reasons for cooperative ministry more compelling, and if God is gracious to us, the percentage of those in some way connected to the Church willing to make a personal commitment (and follow through by being a part of the local church) will grow.