Since the 1970s, it has been interest­ing to watch how Australian churches have responded to loss of spiritual power and influence in the community. Some have seen the ecumeni­cal movement as the answer to their dwin­dling congregations. 1977 was the year in which the slide of the Methodist, Presbyterian and Congregational Churches into obscurity was meant to be halted. But the formation of the Uniting Church did not reverse the trend. All it did was produce a larger denomination which continued to lose numbers at an even faster rate.

In the late 1970s, the Church Growth movement became an influential force on the church scene. Its leading thinkers, Donald MacGavran and Peter Wagner, tried to help the church to grow through under­standing sociology of human groups and the psychological forces at work in them. The movement they spawned slowly turned to marketing techniques as the way to take the gospel to a consumer-orientated society. For these church growth gurus, vision statements became more important than creeds and doctrine.

Now, the latest brand of church growth theory comes from the Willow Creek movement. Their solution for church growth lies in better programming, use of drama, contemporary music and “user-friendly” seeker services to reach the unchurched.

These are just some of the approaches that have been tried to reverse the decline in the churches. Of course, the picture would­n’t be complete without reference to the frequent visits from luminaries of the charismatic movements whose most recent offering urges laughter as the key to bless­ing! Yet despite years of trying from the gurus of growth, the church still declines. None of these methods have really worked.

The Book of Revelation records mes­sages from the living Lord to seven church­es in Asia Minor (Rev. 2 and 3). A few were doing well. Most were in decline. The Lord’s emphasis to each, however, is on the internals, not externals; on theology, not methodology. His emphasis is not on developing new strategies for growth, or promoting more exciting worship, or developing team ministries or organising user-friendly services. Instead there is com­mand to repentance for loss of love to God as well as an emphasis on getting back to biblical truth and its application to experience.

So why do churches decline? How do they recover? The letters to the seven churches give us some clues.

Churches decline when:

First, we lose our first love. Ephesus was a tough place to serve the Lord, but the church was active and committed to bibli­cal teaching and ministry. These believers had persevered in the faith (2:2). They also wanted to rid the church of false leaders and teachers (2:2). That was good. In many respects, our own denomination has made a similar stand for orthodoxy in the post-Union period from 1977 onwards. Nevertheless, we must learn from the church at Ephesus that reformation of doc­trine is only the first step towards spiritual recovery.

What we discover in Ephesus is that in their enthusiasm to root out falsehood, their relationship to God and with one another had soured. They had lost their first love (2:4). Ephesus had become a graveyard of orthodoxy. It was like a house instead of a warm loving home. Everything was in its place, all neat and tidy, but there was no warmth in it. Commitment to Biblical truth alone, however commend­able, does not guarantee spiritual health.

Second, we become afraid of our oppo­nents. A health and wealth gospel would have had a hard time at Smyrna. Stress, poverty and slander were the common experience of Christians who lived there (2:9). There was also spiritual attack by the devil (2:10). In all this they are told to stop being afraid (2:10). Fear is normal and healthy in some areas of life but, as Christians, we must be prepared to suffer.

Third, we make doctrinal concessions. One of the teachings that had infiltrated the church at Pergamum was that of Balaam the prophet (2:14, Num. 22ff). His motto was “have prophecy will travel”. You could pay him to preach whatever you wanted to hear! He should have refused Moab’s money (Num. 22:7), but went with him to prophesy against Israel. Balaam became an ass for what he did not say. And eventually his ass had to say what needed to be said. Balaam stands for all teachers of God’s word who compromise the truth. And we need to remember we can compro­mise the truth by what we don’t say as much as by what we do say.

Fourth, we tolerate immorality in our midst. Thyatira was a small church with sig­nificant leadership problems. Jezebel, another Old Testament figure, stands for those who teach “it’s OK to say yes” to immorality (2:20).

Fifth, we have no real spiritual life. Sardis was a large and successful church — it had “a name to live” (3:1). It was the perfect model of successful Christianity. It was a church that was fashionable and one which everyone spoke well of. People really thought it was alive, no doubt influenced by efficient organisation, regular services, fluent prayers and relevant messages. Visitors to this church were impressed. The problem was that it had lost a warm and vital spirituality. Its hunger for a reputation and size had not been matched by a desire for real spiritual life. There is a tension today between success and approval. Some churches in their desire to grow in numbers can forget the importance of practising the presence of God.

Sixth, we have no sense of personal need. It is so unlike Jesus not to find any­thing to commend, but he cannot find one thing to praise in the church at Laodicea. It is a lukewarm church. There was some commitment to the gospel, some persever­ance, some love, some concern for the lost. But it was all rather tepid and it made Jesus sick (3:16). The user-friendly church at Laodicea had an unspoken watchword — “customer satisfaction guaranteed”. The ministry had subtly changed from persuad­ing people to accept something they really needed (the gospel) to seeking to satisfy people’s personal and fleshly desires.

However, in these letters we also discov­er that churches recover when:

First, they hold fast to the Word of God and exercise discipline in a biblical manner. Satan will either cause obstinate hardliners to quarrel over petty differences or he intimidates us to playing safe on vital issues. At Ephesus there was no compromise on gospel essentials. They tested the claims of “those who called themselves apostles” (2:2). At Pergamum, however, the constant appeals of the Balaamites and Nicolaitans for tolerance had won many people over. Hence there is a need for firmness and dis­cipline in dealing with evil and impurity (Gal. 6:1-5).

One wonders what would have hap­pened to the Presbyterian church in Australia if we had tolerated Dr. Peter Cameron’s views on the Bible and the res­urrection, and had not taken the action we did in 1993? We cannot tolerate error in the church.

Second, we look to the Lord for help in our difficulties. The letter to the persecuted church in Smyrna tells us that the Lord is victorious (2:8) and sovereign (2:10), and has gone through suffering and death. Our help is in the Lord. What place do prayer meetings and days of fasting have in our denomination? This is a searching ques­tion. Do we naturally think of Presbyterians as people of prayer?

Third, the faithful minority in the church work for renewal. No matter how spiritually dead a church may be, there always seems to be a few who truly love the Lord. At Sardis, there were a few names who had “not soiled their garments” (3:4). What is this faithful remnant to do? They are to hold on to the promises of Christ (3:5). They are to walk in holiness of life (“white garments”) and not compromise (“soil”) their Christian testimony, but pray and work for better days.

At the beginning of this century the Rev. John McNeil, a Presbyterian minister, led a group of about 10 people to pray for a great revival in Australia, no matter how long it took. In April 1902, the revival broke out in Melbourne under Reuben Torrey’s preach­ing at Exhibition Hall. Nearly a quarter of a million people each week, in a city of 500,000, were attending the evangelistic services that were being held in the city. Here was a faithful minority doing its work.

Fourth, Christians realise that size is not limiting. Philadelphia, for example, had few resources (3:8). The temptation with few resources is to hold on to them for your­self. Self preservation is the first law of nature. However, the first law of faith is the opposite; it is self denial. The Lord gave Philadelphia an “open door” for outreach. They were to look away from self and their inadequate resources to God and his suffi­ciency. The myth of the mega-church movement today is that somehow the big churches do outreach better. In fact, the real reason why big churches seem to do it better is sociological not theological. Christians playing “musical churches” have been attracted because the mega-church has the physical resources to entertain a wide variety of interests. Most attend because they find a social set with which they feel at home, not because of any real spiritual hunger and thirst. Small churches need to realise that their size is not limiting.

Fifth, Christians repent of self-satisfac­tion. The biggest killer of the church today is complacency. The text “Behold I stand at the door and knock”, is often used in evan­gelistic meetings to encourage people to invite Jesus into their hearts. But in Revelation 3:20 the door is actually a church one.

What we must learn from Christ’s words to the church in Laodicea, as well as to the other churches, is that the cause of the modern decline in the church is not so much due to the secular world around us. The cause is in the church itself. Our atten­tion in the last few decades on external things such as organisational union, pro­grams for outreach, modernising worship etc., misses the vital element. The emphasis in the letters to the seven churches shows that real usefulness in the world is as a result of spiritual health in the church, that is, ongoing reformation and revival. Only when both these factors are present will the church fulfil her calling.