We live in a confusing time. The pace of change is accelerating. The average American cannot assimilate all the changes taking place around him or her. And the average church member, particularly in an established church, sees the church as a refuge from the maddening world and its frantic pace.

But many pundits are claiming that the traditional church is no longer an effective instrument for the Kingdom. With as many as 95 percent of churches in the United States classified as traditional, church leaders and pastors of these churches represent the majority of church leaders in America today. Yet many of these leaders are confused.

"Change the church!" the voices exclaim. But the very change instituted to make the church more effective often becomes the chief source of demoralization and ineffectiveness.

Church leaders see this situation as Catch-22. It seems one must choose either an ineffective status quo or a demoralizing infusion of change that also will render the church ineffective.

I must confess that I too once wondered if the traditional church was a dinosaur headed toward extinction. Then, for more than a year, I contacted or visited nearly 200 churches of various sizes, denominations, worship styles and ministry approaches. I classified the churches as either traditional or nontraditional. I examined the growth rates, conversion rates and opinions of leaders in the churches.

The results of my study surprised me: There was virtually no correlation between the growth and outreach of the church and the type of church -- traditional or nontraditional. Actually, the traditional church had a slightly higher conversion rate than the nontraditional church.

Now some may find fault with my conclusion. The "universe" for the study was relatively small. And the classification of traditional and nontraditional may have been somewhat arbitrary. I admit that my study was not the ideal of most sociologists, statisticians and demographers.

Yet my conclusion has not changed in the months since the study. I continue to find that other factors are more positively correlated to growth and ministry than the traditional or nontraditional classification of the church: location, prayer ministries, pastoral longevity, outreach ministries and others.

Plus my voice is not the only one speaking. Many other Christian leaders believe that the best days of the traditional church are just ahead. The use of hymnals, traditional 11 a.m. services, Sunday school programs and in-depth expository preaching do nothing to detract from the effectiveness of a church's ministry. To the contrary, some of the traditional methodologies actually enhance effectiveness.

That is why I believe the traditional church in the 21st century will not only survive, but it will experience a profound renewal and revival. Such a prediction may seem bold to some and foolish to others.

Going against the grain

Some of the better-selling books on the church have focused on innovative, contemporary ministries -- churches that do not use hymnals, have no religious symbols and have an extensive cell-group ministry. Now I do not find fault with the message of these books. We should praise God for the evangelistic successes of these nontraditional church models.

The problem, however, is the implicit conclusion that to be effective, a church must be nontraditional. But effective traditional models abound. Indeed, much of the results of our research goes against the grain of some user-friendly approaches and nontraditional-only models advocated today.

I am not saying that the traditional church should never change. To be effective, the church must constantly seek to understand its culture and make methodological changes when necessary. Change is inevitable. Rather, I am concerned about the types of changes implemented.

Many leaders have unwisely accepted the myth of the dinosaur and introduced changes to areas that still have tremendous value. This "devaluation of the church's character" means that the church has been stripped of its heritage and identity to the point that effective ministry is all but impossible.

A word about the nontraditional church

What I am discussing is a positive assessment about traditional churches. It is not a negative assessment of nontraditional churches. My primary concern is that, in our infatuation with newer models of ministry, we have failed to see how God is blessing numerous traditional churches and long-standing models. The Kingdom of God is large enough for both models and the multitude and variety of ministry expressions within each large category.

I will continue to read eagerly about nontraditional church models. And I will continue to learn from these newer models. Neither "traditional" nor "nontraditional" carry negative or positive connotations throughout my writings. They are both evaluated in light of their biblical faithfulness and ministry effectiveness.

But regarding the issues related to the traditional church and its effectiveness, I pray that you will see some of the "mercy drops" that are preceding potential "showers of blessings."