“Our Church Is Dying, But They’d Rather Die Than Change.”

A troubling sentiment is increasingly voiced in discussions about the state of the church today: Consider the following quote.

"Our church is dying, but they'd rather die than change."

I understand the sentiment, however, it also needs to be said that...

Change Without Context Is A Dangerous Philosophy

The rest of the quote is as follows;

"I was talkng with a young pastor recently who said something that stopped me in my tracks: "Our church is dying, but they'd rather die than change." And there it was - the elephant that nobody wants to talk about.

Let me put this plainly: Simply keeping your church the same as it was in 1963 isn't "preserving the faith." That's not tradition - that's nostalgia. And nostalgia makes a poor substitute for discipleship.

Many of our churches that claim to be "standing firm" are actually in free fall. We've confused preserving the gospel with preserving our comfort zones. Meanwhile, our young people aren't leaving because they've rejected our theology - they're leaving because they can't find it beneath all our cultural preferences.

What if our refusal to change anything isn't actually faithfulness? What if it's fear dressed up as conviction?

You see, real conservation requires cultivation. A garden left "unchanged" doesn't stay pristine - it gets overrun. The same principle applies to our churches. When we mistake maintenance for mission, we're not protecting tradition; we're enabling erosion.

Here's the uncomfortable truth: Some of our "we've always done it this way" churches haven't actually "always done it this way" at all. They've just forgotten why they started doing it in the first place.

The early church turned the world upside down not by rigid adherence to customs, but by radical adherence to Christ. Maybe it's time we learned the difference.

The gospel doesn't need protecting. It needs proclaiming. And sometimes, proclaiming it faithfully means changing everything except the message itself.

Just something to think about next time we mistake our preferences for orthodoxy."

This statement, while provocative, suggests that the primary reason for a church’s decline is an unwillingness to adapt. Simplistic approaches in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of churches in decline are the bane of our current ecclesiastic situation in America. At first glance, this statement appears to highlight a valid problem—churches clinging to outdated methods or preferences while neglecting their mission. However, without careful context, this sentiment risks promoting change for change’s sake, a dangerous philosophy that can lead to the erosion of biblical precedent and faithfulness. We have witnessed numerous shifts in church culture, particularly since the 1980s, that have significantly impacted the spiritual landscape of our nation. Many of these changes have led to disillusionment and a sense of discouragement among believers. It’s worth reflecting on whether embracing further change without careful discernment is truly the solution we need.

The Real Problem: Fear Masquerading as Faithfulness

There is truth to the critique that some churches resist necessary change. For many, a fear of losing familiar traditions can mask itself as faithfulness to the gospel. Nostalgia, mistaken for orthodoxy, can become an idol, preventing churches from fulfilling their mission.

However, preserving the gospel is not the same as preserving comfort zones. The gospel is unchanging, but the methods by which it is communicated may need to adapt to reach new generations effectively. As the apostle Paul wrote, “I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). If we prioritize our preferences over the mission of proclaiming Christ, we are no longer standing firm; we are standing still.

The Danger of Uncritical Change

The assertion that a church’s refusal to change signals unfaithfulness is overly simplistic. Not all change is inherently virtuous, nor is all resistance inherently wrong. Some reluctance to change stems from a deep conviction to uphold biblical truth in the face of cultural compromise.

Change for change’s sake is a dangerous philosophy. It risks uprooting practices that are biblically grounded and essential for spiritual growth. While it’s true that some methods can and should adapt to cultural contexts, those changes must always align with Scripture. It is ok to "think outside of the box," but it is not ok to "think outside of the Book!" The early church did not grow by compromising the gospel or its practices but by remaining steadfast in their devotion to Christ. As Acts 2:42 reminds us, they “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”

Tradition vs. Nostalgia

It is often said that many churches are more interested in preserving tradition than engaging in mission. While this is sometimes true, it is important to distinguish between nostalgia and biblical tradition. Nostalgia clings to the past for its own sake, while true tradition is rooted in Scripture and provides an anchor for faith and practice. Even Paul stated, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15,

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Some traditions dismissed as “outdated” or “irrelevant” have endured precisely because they are effective at fostering discipleship and spiritual growth.

Other cultural preferences may be "outdated" or "irrelevant," but even these must be carefully considered before being dispensed with. If our cultural preferences are not based on Scriptural principles, and they are hindering the advance of the Gospel, then by all means, get rid of them.

Of course, tradition must not become an idol. Churches should regularly evaluate their practices to ensure they are helping rather than hindering the mission. The challenge is to preserve what is biblically essential while letting go of what is merely preferential.

Why Young People Leave

It is stated here that young people are leaving the church because they

"cannot find theology beneath cultural preferences."

While there is some truth to this claim, the reality is more complex.

Some young people leave because they are disillusioned with shallow teaching or churches that prioritize appearances over substance. Others, however, reject the church not because of cultural preferences but because they reject the authority of Scripture altogether. They also reject the church because of hypocrisy in the home, when it comes to faith.

The solution is not simply to change everything except the gospel message itself. Rather, churches must bridge the gap between timeless biblical truth and the pressing questions of contemporary culture. This requires discernment: adapting methods while remaining uncompromising on doctrine.

Faithfulness vs. Pragmatism

One of the most troubling aspects of the call to “change or die” is its underlying pragmatism. The idea that faithfulness requires “changing everything except the message itself” risks reducing ministry to a results-driven formula. This is very common in the research literature as well as in actual practice.

Faithfulness to Christ does not always result in visible success. A church that holds fast to the gospel but struggles to grow numerically is not necessarily unfaithful. In fact, history is full of examples of faithful ministries (Adoniram Judson, David Brainerd, William Carey, Jeremiah, Noah, Anne Dutton) that bore little fruit in their own time but laid the groundwork for future generations.

The metaphor of a garden—often used to argue for constant change—can be helpful but must be applied carefully. Cultivation involves tending to what is already planted, not uprooting it indiscriminately. The goal is not to replace biblical faithfulness with fleeting cultural relevance but to ensure that the mission of the church remains central.

The Example of the Early Church

"The early church turned the world upside down not by rigidly adhering to customs but by radically adhering to Christ."

Yet, their adaptability was not without boundaries. They upheld the apostles’ teaching, devoted themselves to prayer, and faithfully administered the ordinances.

Churches today can learn from this balance. While methods may change, the message and mission remain the same. Faithfulness requires holding fast to the truth of Scripture while seeking ways to proclaim that truth effectively in a changing world.

A Call for Discernment

The critique of churches that resist change often contains a grain of truth. Some churches are indeed clinging to nostalgia at the expense of mission. However, the call to change must be tempered with discernment. Not all resistance is fear, and not all change is good.

The mission of the church is to proclaim Christ, make disciples, and glorify God. Change is only valuable when it serves that mission from a biblical perspective. Let us not mistake our preferences for orthodoxy or our methods for the message. Instead, let us strive for faithfulness—preserving the gospel and cultivating fresh ways, that align with biblical principles, to proclaim it to a lost and dying world.