Why Doesn't Anything FIll the Mainline Void in the Northeast US?

[ParticularWife]

Theologically liberal and mainline churches are experiencing long term and serious decline. What's not as well known is that fundamentalist, Evangelical and stricter Confessional churches are actually growing. Not only that, but it's not even: in the Northeast it seems nothing replaced the mainline churches. But in the northwest and Arizona there are tons of little churches picking up the mission field. The fastest-growing churches in America are located in the Western states, including the Northwest, and are often conservative or evangelical in their theology.

In my area, there are pseudo-Christian cults and self-help seminars disguised as churches, focusing more on leftist politics or wealth than the Bible. Despite—or perhaps because of—this environment, strongly Bible-centered churches are flourishing. For instance, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I attend has doubled in size since 2015. Within a reasonable drive, there are at least fourteen churches, including Primitive Baptist, Independent Fundamental Baptist, Particular Baptist, OPC, Protestant Reformed Church in America, and RCUS congregations.

It seems that here in the Northwest, when mainline churches decline, biblically focused churches emerge to fill the void. This contrasts with the Northeast, where such a resurgence appears less common.

Why is this the case? Is it because people in the Northeast are more tied to traditional mainline denominations? Does the West's history of establishing small, independent churches since the 19th century play a role? Could the Northwest's culture of religious individualism and the tendency of conservative churches to position themselves as countercultural also contribute to this phenomenon?

 

[shittim]

He is calling his Own to Him from all kindred's and tongues at this end of the end times.
Most mainline churches miss the mark.

 

[maxwel]

It seems that here in the Northwest, when mainline churches decline, biblically focused churches emerge to fill the void. This contrasts with the Northeast, where such a resurgence appears less common.

Regarding the Northeast, I think it's just indicative of the spiritual condition of that region, which we can also see reflected in the culture and politics of the region.

.

 

[ParticularWife]

Regarding the Northeast, I think it's just indicative of the spiritual condition of that region, which we can also see reflected in the culture and politics of the region.

.

I don't disagree, but Seattle isn't exactly a bastion of traditionalism. In some ways it's a weirder version of progressivism than is typical in the East, which is more establishment than radical. On the other hand, the West has always had a part of the population that adheres to frontier American values, which is Protestant and libertarianish.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

I am in Columbus Ohio. Alot of mainstream churches here have died. the church I grew up and and spent the first 1/4 of my life in is closed. I see many churches in smaller town, and even in my own city closed. large empty building.

I also see many non denominational church popping up everywhere ( I believe to one, we have an active membership of over 6000 and have 5 meeting places all over the city) I have seen others also. some of them are ok. Some of them are just a new movement focusing on the younger generation.

I do believe we are witnessing the falling away mentioned in the word. as the love of many are growing cold.

 

[ParticularWife]

I am in Columbus Ohio. Alot of mainstream churches here have died. the church I grew up and and spent the first 1/4 of my life in is closed.

The PCA has been a mixed bag for decades - they had R. C. Sproul but also some very PCUSA-like liberals. There are still good PCA churches, but the ones near me had simply collapsed on catechism and discipline. I did not want to change churches in the first place, but since I went to the OPC a lot of people I knew there have left the church, sometimes for Fundamentalist churches.

I also see many non denominational church popping up

"Non-denominational" is a nonsense claim (most of them are General Baptist Churches in reality), though some of them are Gospel churches. I'll append some short videos at the end that explain some of these points. Although I am a Baptist in a very high church Baptist.

I do believe we are witnessing the falling away mentioned in the word. as the love of many are growing cold.

I understand this, but I don't agree for a variety of reasons. One is because I'm postMil (and frankly think AMil collapses into the same thing in practice). I don't know when Jesus will return, but I see no reason to think that hypocrisy and apostasy are anything new, in the world or the church.

 

[Everlasting-Grace]

The PCA has been a mixed bag for decades - they had R. C. Sproul but also some very PCUSA-like liberals. There are still good PCA churches, but the ones near me had simply collapsed on catechism and discipline. I did not want to change churches in the first place, but since I went to the OPC a lot of people I knew there have left the church, sometimes for Fundamentalist churches.

"Non-denominational" is a nonsense claim (most of them are General Baptist Churches in reality), though some of them are Gospel churches. I'll append some short videos at the end that explain some of these points. Although I am a Baptist in a very high church Baptist.

I grew up Baptist. That church is gone. I was a Baptist until my mid 30’s. My church had a nothing like the Baptist church. Most if the non demons I see the Baptist church would reject. So it’s not the same here
[quote
I understand this, but I don't agree for a variety of reasons. One is because I'm postMil (and frankly think AMil collapses into the same thing in practice). I don't know when Jesus will return, but I see no reason to think that hypocrisy and apostasy are anything new, in the world or the church.

[/QUOTE]
It is here in the eastern us. The apostasy is rampant. Especially in blue cities where lgbtq plus and other liberal views are rampant. My only hope is we finally see people Sick of the woke nonsense. But it is not causing the church to grow

 

[p_rehbein]

Non-denominational" is a nonsense claim (most of them are General Baptist Churches in reality), though some of them are Gospel churches. I'll append some short videos at the end that explain some of these points. Although I am a Baptist in a very high church Baptist.

Have you visited all the Non-denominational congregations across the US? If not, then your claim itself is nonsense. Or, you do not understand non-denomination.

Broad brush painting is never a good idea.

 

[ParticularWife]

Have you visited all the Non-denominational congregations across the US? If not, then your claim itself is nonsense. Or, you do not understand non-denomination.

Broad brush painting is never a good idea.

Everyone has a denomination whether they want to or not. Pretending not to is an abuse of language. I'm really not inclined to discuss the issue with someone clearly so prickly about a label.

 

[ZNP]

The PCA has been a mixed bag for decades - they had R. C. Sproul but also some very PCUSA-like liberals. There are still good PCA churches, but the ones near me had simply collapsed on catechism and discipline. I did not want to change churches in the first place, but since I went to the OPC a lot of people I knew there have left the church, sometimes for Fundamentalist churches.

"Non-denominational" is a nonsense claim (most of them are General Baptist Churches in reality), though some of them are Gospel churches. I'll append some short videos at the end that explain some of these points. Although I am a Baptist in a very high church Baptist.

I understand this, but I don't agree for a variety of reasons. One is because I'm postMil (and frankly think AMil collapses into the same thing in practice). I don't know when Jesus will return, but I see no reason to think that hypocrisy and apostasy are anything new, in the world or the church.

The term non denomination does not mean they don't adhere to certain doctrines, it means the Lord's table is open to all. You don't have to be a member of their denomination or pass some test before you can take the Lord's table. You have to examine yourself but that is it. In that sense they are non denominational.

There are now many denominations that do the same thing, but years ago they didn't. As it withers and dries up denominational Christianity is becoming less rigid.

 

[ParticularWife]

The term non denomination does not mean they don't adhere to certain doctrines, it means the Lord's table is open to all. You don't have to be a member of their denomination or pass some test before you can take the Lord's table. You have to examine yourself but that is it. In that sense they are non denominational.

There are now many denominations that do the same thing, but years ago they didn't. As it withers and dries up denominational Christianity is becoming less rigid.

Open communion is itself a denominational issue that churches have split over. My church doesn't allow it, and I agree with their reasoning.

 

[ZNP]

Everyone has a denomination whether they want to or not. Pretending not to is an abuse of language. I'm really not inclined to discuss the issue with someone clearly so prickly about a label.

You are referring to a doctrinal set of beliefs, that is not what non denominational means. They aren't saying they don't hold to set of doctrinal beliefs.

It used to be that if you wanted to take the Lord's table you had to be a member of that particular denomination.

Also in order to be a member of a denomination you had to subscribe to their doctrines which did not fully align with the fellowship of the apostles and the faith once for all delivered and described in the book of Ephesians, the seven ones that we hold to.

Non denominational meant you didn't have to do either of those. If you believed there was one God and Father and one Lord and one Spirit, and that Jesus redeemed us by His blood shed on the cross and one baptism then you would endeavor to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the bond of peace and would not divide the believers into denominations.

 

[ZNP]

Open communion is itself a denominational issue that churches have split over. My church doesn't allow it, and I agree with their reasoning.

No, it is a doctrinal issue. You are conflating the two words. A denomination is making a distinction between two congregations of believers over doctrinal issues that is so sharp they do not allow anyone to partake of the Lord's table without subscribing to their doctrinal interpretation. As a result it is no longer the Lord's table, it is the Denomination's table.

For example, Ephesians 4 lists the seven things that all believers must believe in, the items of the faith that we are to fight over. If I subscribe to all seven of them and confess them then any congregation that refuses to let me take the table with them is now creating criteria that the apostles never gave us and so they are not endeavoring to keep the oneness of the Spirit in the uniting bond of peace.

 

[ParticularWife]

The doctrines make them ipso facto members is a denomination. Their distinctives will determine who can accept them, even if they pretend to accept anyone.
Closer communion is a regular practice which I support. But it has to do with creeds and practices more than denominational membership: OPC and RCUS churches share communion, pastors and seminaries, and they're not even the same denominational family. RCUS is a mainline continental Reformed Church, OPC is a split. But they are able to share communion because they're substantially similar. What they couldn't do is have the same relationship with a church that has open communion.
Formally different denominations are often the same denomination in practice, but Formally non-denominational churches usually end up as Baptists of some sort.

 

[Magenta]

It used to be that if you wanted to take the Lord's table you had to be a member of that particular denomination.

I thought that was just Catholicism? In my church there was a reminder before the Lord's supper that it was for
believers only just to let visitors know it would be inappropriate for them to partake if they were not believers.

 

[ZNP]

I thought that was just Catholicism? In my church there was a reminder before the Lord's supper that it was for
believers only just to let visitors know it would be in appropriate for them to partake if they were not believers.

No, I am a Gideon, we speak at a number of churches and there are still denominations that will not allow you to take communion with them unless you are a member. I grew up as an Episcopalian and before you could take communion you had to pass an examination and be a member of that church.

However, this practice is clearly prohibited by the New Testament, the non denominational movement sprung up to object to it, and many of the denominations have loosened their rules to have open communion as a response.

 

[Magenta]

No, I am a Gideon, we speak at a number of churches and there are still denominations that will not allow you to take communion with them unless you are a member. I grew up as an Episcopalian and before you could take communion you had to pass an examination and be a member of that church.

However, this practice is clearly prohibited by the New Testament, the non denominational movement sprung up to object to it, and many of the denominations have loosened their rules to have open communion as a response.

Thank you for clarifying, ZNP ..

 

[ParticularWife]

This is not a thread about communion, but:
Baptism is a prerequisite for church membership and participation in the Lord's Supper. Without this sign, participation in the covenant meal (the Lord's Supper) is inappropriate. See Matthew 28:19-20, Romans 6:3-4.

One must also defend the purity of the local church. The Lord’s Supper is not only a personal act of worship but also a corporate act of the church, signifying unity in doctrine and practice. It's also a means of church discipline, something I strongly believe in and far too many churches refuse to practice. See: 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, 11:17-34; Matthew 18:15-20

Allowing individuals who have not been baptized as believers to partake in communion creates a theological inconsistency, as communion is an ordinance for those who are fully initiated into the covenant community. See 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Acts 2:41-42

 

[Dude653]

Church membership has been on a decline since covid. A lot of people decided they would rather stay home on Sunday morning

I have no idea. One of the big mega churches are still thriving. You would think people would figure out that the preacher doesn't really need a private jet and a $3,000 suits

 

[ZNP]

This is not a thread about communion, but:
Baptism is a prerequisite for church membership and participation in the Lord's Supper. Without this sign, participation in the covenant meal (the Lord's Supper) is inappropriate. See Matthew 28:19-20, Romans 6:3-4.

One must also defend the purity of the local church. The Lord’s Supper is not only a personal act of worship but also a corporate act of the church, signifying unity in doctrine and practice. It's also a means of church discipline, something I strongly believe in and far too many churches refuse to practice. See: 1 Corinthians 5:6-8, 11:17-34; Matthew 18:15-20

Allowing individuals who have not been baptized as believers to partake in communion creates a theological inconsistency, as communion is an ordinance for those who are fully initiated into the covenant community. See 1 Corinthians 10:16-17, Acts 2:41-42

Well we are not baptized into the name of a denomination. We are baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.