The Church Is Not Dying—but Some Churches Are
Updated: 3 hours ago
What the Latest Research Really Tells Us About Church Closures and Church Health
By Brent Madaris, D.Min.
“When the pews grow quiet, the pulpit must grow clear.”
That conviction has shaped much of my work in church revitalization. When attendance declines, giving decreases, ministries disappear, and a congregation begins wondering whether it has a future, the first question should not be, “What program can we start?” The first question should be, “What is actually happening to this church?”
That question has become increasingly important as new reports about American churches have appeared.
On October 1, 2026, CNN published an article describing what it called a “tsunami” of church closings poised to remake America. The article pointed to thousands of congregations closing, demographic changes, declining religious identification, and the increasing difficulty many churches face in maintaining their buildings and ministries. (KESQ)
The picture sounds bleak.
But CNN’s story was not the only significant piece of research available.
Earlier this year, the Hartford Institute for Religion Research released the results of its 2025 national study of 7,453 congregations across 79 denominations and faith traditions. The study, conducted between September and December 2025 and released in April 2026, found that median in-person worship attendance had risen to 70—the first positive gain in 25 years of tracking. (covidreligionresearch.org)
At first glance, those two stories may seem to contradict each other.
They don’t.
Hartford was not reporting that American Christianity had suddenly experienced revival. Its researchers described the moment as a “recalibration.” The gains were uneven, small congregations continued to struggle, and much of the apparent growth reflected movement among congregations rather than an overall expansion of religious participation. (covidreligionresearch.org)
CNN, meanwhile, was focusing on the very real and very serious problem of congregations that are closing or facing circumstances that make continued ministry increasingly difficult.
Both can be true at the same time.
The more important question, then, is not simply whether American churches are growing or dying. The better question is: What is actually happening to individual congregations, and what does it tell us about their health?(Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
Are American churches dying?
Are they recovering?
The answer is more complicated—and more important—than either headline suggests.
Two Stories Can Be True at the Same Time
The most important number in the Hartford study may not be the increase in median attendance. It may be this:
46% of congregations experienced declining in-person attendance over the five-year period, while 43% experienced growth. Another 12% were essentially stable.
America does not have one church story. Some churches are growing. Some are declining. Some are holding steady. Some are closing. And some are adapting in ways that make the traditional categories of “growing” and “declining” increasingly difficult to apply.
Hartford’s conclusion is therefore much more nuanced than “churches are back.”
The researchers say American congregational life has entered a new phase characterized by resilience, adaptation, and cautious hope. They specifically caution that the findings do not represent a nationwide revival. They represent recalibration. (Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
It also helps us understand why a CNN article about large numbers of church closures and a Hartford report showing an increase in median attendance can both be describing reality.
A growing church may be gaining people from another declining church. A church may be growing because people who stopped attending during COVID have returned. A congregation may be attracting people who have transferred from another congregation. A church may be shrinking while another church across town is growing. The scoreboard of an individual congregation does not necessarily tell us what is happening to Christianity as a whole.
We Need to Be Careful With the Numbers
One of the most dramatic figures circulating in discussions of church closures is the projection that as many as 100,000 American churches could close over a period of years. That number deserves attention, but it should not be treated as though it were a census or a verified forecast.
There is a difference between saying “100,000 churches will close” and saying “a prominent researcher has warned that as many as 100,000 could close.” Likewise, saying that approximately 4,000 Protestant churches closed during a year is not the same as saying that America is losing 4,000 churches every year on a net basis. Gross closures and net congregational change are different measurements.
Lifeway Research’s most recent national analysis estimated that approximately 3,800 new Protestant churches were started in 2024 while approximately 4,000 closed, producing a net loss of about 200 congregations. The analysis drew on information from 35 denominations and faith groups representing approximately 58% of U.S. Protestant churches. (Baptist Press)
That is still a serious loss.
But it is very different from saying that the nation is experiencing a net loss of 4,000 Protestant churches every year. This distinction is important because sensational numbers can cause churches either to panic or to dismiss the problem altogether. Neither response is helpful. The numbers should cause us to diagnose. And that is where church revitalization becomes important.
What Does a Healthy Church Look Like?
What Do We Mean by Church Health?
Before we can talk about revitalization, we have to clarify what we are trying to restore.
Church health is not the same thing as church growth.
A healthy church may be growing, declining, or temporarily stable. Attendance is an important measurement, but it is not the final measure of spiritual health.
A healthy church is one that is faithfully fulfilling its biblical purpose—worshiping God, proclaiming His Word, making disciples, reaching the lost, loving and serving its community, developing godly leaders, and functioning as a biblical body of believers.
That means a church can have 500 people and be unhealthy. It can have 50 people and be healthy. Church health cannot be determined by size, growth, or the preservation of familiar methods. A small congregation may be faithfully fulfilling its biblical mission, while another small congregation may be struggling in important areas of church life. A growing congregation may be becoming healthier, but numerical growth alone does not prove it. Likewise, changes in methods, structures, or ministry practices do not necessarily indicate unfaithfulness. The better question is whether the church is faithfully fulfilling the purposes Christ has given His church.
Growth matters. Decline matters. Finances matter. Leadership matters. Community engagement matters. But each of these is an indicator—not the definition—of church health.
This distinction is important because revitalization is not simply an effort to make a declining church grow again. It is an effort to restore and strengthen the church’s biblical health so that it can faithfully fulfill its mission.
That is the perspective from which I approached my doctoral research. In 2024, I completed a multiple-case study examining two Independent Baptist churches that had experienced significant decline but subsequently moved toward revitalization. My research identified five characteristics common to those revitalization experiences:
Pastoral leadership
Community engagement
Discipleship
Evangelism
Programmatic emphases
These were not five steps in a church-growth formula. They were not five techniques guaranteed to increase attendance. Rather, they were five areas in which important characteristics emerged as I examined how these churches moved from decline toward greater health. Beneath those five areas were deeper themes: biblical authority, prayer, pastoral endurance, congregational unity, relational repair, and adaptation without compromising biblical convictions. (Hometown Hope)
The new Hartford research gives us an opportunity to place those findings alongside a much larger national picture.
And what we find is fascinating.
1. Leadership: A Church Needs More Than a Preacher
My research placed pastoral leadership first. But leadership should not be reduced to finding a charismatic pastor or bringing in someone with a new set of ideas. In the churches I studied, new pastors were present at the beginning of revitalization. But what distinguished them was not merely that they were new.
They stayed.
They endured.
They preached.
They invested in people.
They remained faithful through the slow and sometimes discouraging process of renewal.
Hartford gives us a broader perspective. The national study found that 74% of congregations rated pastor-congregation fit as “very good,” with another 22% rating it “good.” That means the national problem cannot simply be explained by saying that churches are declining because they have bad pastors.
But Hartford also found that 29% of clergy leaders serve part-time, 37% have other paid employment, and 63% of those who work outside the church say that employment is due to circumstance or need. In addition, 41% of congregations say they have less staffing than they need. (Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
That suggests another problem.
Sometimes the issue is not the quality of the shepherd. It is the capacity of the ministry structure. A faithful pastor can become overwhelmed when a congregation has lost members, income, volunteers, and leaders.
Decline can create a cycle:
Declining attendance can reduce giving. Reduced giving can reduce staffing. Reduced staffing can reduce ministry capacity. Reduced ministry capacity can make revitalization more difficult.
Hartford does not establish that this causal chain occurs in every declining church. But it gives us reason to recognize that pastoral faithfulness and congregational capacity must be considered together.
A revitalization assessment therefore should not ask only:
“Do we have a good pastor?”
It should also ask:
“Does this church’s present structure give its pastor the capacity to shepherd, disciple, evangelize, develop leaders, and engage the community?”
That is a much more useful question.
2. Community Engagement: Being Busy Is Not the Same as Being Effective
My research placed community engagement second.
A declining church cannot remain permanently turned inward and expect its community to know, understand, or trust it. Churches need to be present. They need to serve. They need to build relationships. They need to communicate the gospel. But Hartford gives us an important qualification.
Seventy-one percent of congregations reported that they are actively involved in their local communities.
That is encouraging.
But remember:
46% of congregations were still declining in attendance. (Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
Therefore, community involvement by itself cannot be the definition of church health. A church can have a food pantry, community event, school partnership, outreach program, or service ministry and still be declining. That does not make those ministries wrong. It means we need to ask a deeper question:
What is our community engagement accomplishing?
Are we simply providing services? Or are relationships being formed? Are people hearing the gospel? Are believers being equipped to minister? Are new disciples being made? Are people being incorporated into the life of the church?
Community engagement is important. But it should not become another program that makes a declining church feel productive without addressing its deeper condition.
3. Discipleship: What Happens After Sunday?
This may be one of the most important questions raised by the new research.
My doctoral research identified discipleship as the third major characteristic associated with revitalization. That conclusion has become even more significant in light of Hartford’s research on individual church attenders.
The congregational study reports high levels of perceived spiritual vitality. Eighty-six percent of congregations described themselves as spiritually vital or alive. Eighty-five percent reported having a clear mission or purpose.
Those numbers sound encouraging.
But Hartford also surveyed more than 24,000 individual church attenders from more than 80 Christian denominations. That study found that nearly 40% of church attenders did not regularly engage in either the religious or spiritual practices measured by the survey in their personal lives. Only 12% were regularly engaged in both categories. The researchers measured religious practices such as prayer, Bible reading, sharing faith, online faith resources, and small-group participation. (Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
We need to interpret that finding carefully.
It does not mean that 40% of church attenders never pray or read their Bibles. Hartford’s methodology required a fairly broad pattern of engagement across multiple practices before someone was classified as regularly engaged. (Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
But the larger point remains:
Church attendance is not the same thing as discipleship.
A person can attend church and remain spiritually passive. A church can conduct Bible studies without producing mature disciples. A congregation can have a full calendar and still fail to cultivate Christlikeness.
This is why I have repeatedly argued that research should function as a diagnostic tool. Scripture gives us the standard; research can help us see how churches are actually functioning.
A healthy church should therefore ask:
What happens to our people between Sundays?
Are they praying? Are they reading and obeying God’s Word? Are they growing in holiness? Are they serving others? Are they learning to minister? Are they discipling someone else? Are they becoming more like Christ?
Those questions are much more important than simply asking how many people occupied the pew last Sunday.
4. Evangelism: Wanting Growth Is Not the Same as Reaching People
My research ranked evangelism fourth.
Some might find that surprising. Shouldn’t evangelism be first? Of course evangelism is essential. But my research suggested that evangelism functions within a larger ecosystem of church health. Leadership, community engagement, and discipleship create an environment in which evangelism can become part of the culture rather than merely another campaign.
Hartford gives us an intriguing national comparison. Eighty-two percent of congregations reported that they are actively looking for new members.
That sounds excellent.
But when Hartford asked about the behavior of regular participants, only about twent-eight percent reported recruiting new people “quite a bit” or “a lot.” Those measures are not identical, and “recruiting new people” should not simply be equated with biblical evangelism. Nevertheless, the difference raises an important question:
Are our churches actually reaching people, or are they primarily hoping people will come?
There is a significant difference between wanting visitors and personally sharing the gospel. There is a difference between advertising an event and developing relationships with lost people. There is a difference between saying, “We need young families,” and actually knowing young families who need Christ.
Evangelism is not simply a church’s desire to grow. It is the outward expression of a people who believe the gospel is worth sharing. That is why I have argued elsewhere that evangelism is essential to revitalization but is not a standalone remedy. It works best when leadership is healthy, the church is engaged with its community, and discipleship is intentional. (Hometown Hope)
5. Programs: A Busy Church Is Not Necessarily a Healthy Church
This may be where the Hartford study most strongly reinforces what my research found.
Programs were fifth in my study.
That does not mean programs are unimportant. Children need teaching. Adults need teaching. Churches need opportunities for fellowship. People need opportunities to serve. Missions, community ministry, youth ministry, and other forms of organized ministry can be extremely valuable.
But programs are tools. They are not the definition of church health.
Hartford’s findings help us see why.
American congregations are doing many things. Yet nearly half are declining.
Therefore:
More programs do not automatically produce a healthier church. And fewer programs do not automatically produce a healthier church either.
The real question is:
What is this ministry actually accomplishing?
Does it make disciples?
Does it help people serve?
Does it strengthen families?
Does it reach the community?
Does it equip believers?
Does it facilitate evangelism?
Does it help the church fulfill its biblical mission?
Or are we maintaining it simply because we have always done it? That is an important distinction. A program should serve the mission. The mission should never become the servant of the program.
The Problem With Measuring Health by Attendance Alone
This brings us to perhaps the most uncomfortable finding in the Hartford research.
Consider these self-reported numbers:
85% say they have a clear mission.
86% say they are spiritually vital.
82% say they are actively looking for new members.
74% say they are willing to change to meet new challenges.
71% say they are actively involved in their local community.
Yet 46% of congregations experienced declining in-person attendance.
What should we do with that?
We should not accuse churches of lying. Most probably aren’t. They sincerely believe these things about their congregations. The problem is that self-perception and measurable outcomes are not always the same thing.
This is why diagnosis matters.
A patient may feel well and still have an abnormal laboratory result. The laboratory result doesn’t insult the patient. It gives the physician information the patient’s feelings alone cannot provide.
Likewise, a church may sincerely believe it is spiritually healthy while other indicators suggest that something requires attention.
Attendance is one indicator.
Finances are another.
Leadership stability is another.
Evangelistic activity is another.
Discipleship is another.
The age and composition of the congregation are another.
Community relationships are another.
The development of new leaders is another.
No single measurement tells the whole story. But refusing to look at the measurements does not make the underlying condition disappear.
Growth Does Not Automatically Mean Health
This is also where we need to be careful with the success stories featured in discussions of church growth.
Some churches are genuinely growing. Praise God for it. We should rejoice when people are saved, baptized, discipled, and incorporated into faithful local churches. But numerical growth by itself does not establish biblical health.
A church can grow through transfers from other churches. A congregation can grow because people who had stopped attending during the pandemic have returned. A church can grow because another congregation nearby has declined. A church can grow because it has become more attractive to religious consumers.
None of those things necessarily means the church is unhealthy. But neither does attendance growth automatically prove that it is healthy. Hartford explicitly notes that much of the current growth represents internal reshuffling rather than an overall expansion of religious participation. (Pandemic Impact on Congregations)
That is a critical distinction.
One church can gain fifty people while another loses fifty people. The first church celebrates. The second church mourns. But the national Christian population has not necessarily changed at all. The scoreboard can show a winner without telling us whether the game itself produced anything new.
The Church Is Not Dying—but Local Churches Can Die
At this point we need to make an important theological distinction. When Christians say, “The Church will never die,” they are right.
Jesus said:
“I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”—Matthew 16:18
Christ’s promise concerns His Church. It does not mean that every local congregation will exist forever. The New Testament itself gives us examples of local churches being warned, corrected, and threatened with judgment if they refuse to repent. Christ told the church at Ephesus that if it would not repent, He would remove its candlestick (Revelation 2:5).
Christ’s Church will continue. A particular congregation may not.
Those truths are not contradictory. Therefore, when we hear that thousands of local churches are closing, we do not need to panic as though Christianity itself were about to disappear. But neither should we dismiss the closures by saying:
“The true Church is still alive, so it doesn’t matter.” It matters. Every local congregation represents people. Families. Children. Missionaries. Pastors. Communities. Years of ministry. Gospel witness. When a church closes, something real has been lost. The appropriate response is neither panic nor triumphalism. It is diagnosis, repentance where necessary, prayer, and faithful action.
Sometimes Revitalization Requires Significant Change
One of the most difficult decisions in church revitalization is determining what must change and what must remain. A congregation that is declining may need to make significant changes in order to continue its ministry. That does not mean abandoning its identity, compromising its biblical convictions, or changing simply for the sake of change. It means honestly evaluating whether the way the church is currently organized and functioning is helping or hindering its ability to fulfill its biblical mission.
Revitalization does not mean preserving every existing practice, program, structure, or facility.
Sometimes a church needs to retool. Sometimes it needs to refocus. Sometimes it may need to replant. Sometimes it may need to merge with another congregation. And in some circumstances, a congregation may eventually need to retire.
These are not necessarily signs of failure. They may be difficult but faithful responses to changing circumstances.
The important question is not simply, “How do we keep this church alive?”
It is: “What changes are necessary for this congregation to remain faithful to Christ and effectively fulfill its biblical mission?”
A church building may be valuable, but the building is not the church. A particular schedule may have served the congregation well for decades, but the schedule is not the mission. A ministry program may have once been fruitful, but the program itself is not the measure of faithfulness. Even traditions that have become deeply meaningful to a congregation must be evaluated in light of whether they are helping the church accomplish what Christ has called it to do.
CNN’s reporting included an example of a small congregation facing enormous building expenses that ultimately moved into another church’s facility. From one perspective, leaving a building after years of ministry there might look like a loss. From another perspective, it may have been a wise decision that allowed the congregation to redirect resources toward ministry rather than property.
That is the kind of decision church revitalization sometimes requires. The goal is not to preserve everything the church has always done. The goal is to preserve faithfulness to Christ and the church’s biblical mission.
Sometimes that will mean changing very little.
Sometimes it will mean changing a great deal.
The challenge for church leaders is to distinguish between what is biblical and essential and what is simply familiar and preferred. That is why revitalization requires more than new ideas. It requires biblical discernment, prayer, humility, and the willingness to ask difficult questions.
The question is not:
“How do we keep this church exactly as it is?”
Nor is it:
“How do we change this church so that it will grow?”
The better question is:
“What must change, and what must remain, so that this congregation can faithfully fulfill its mission in the community God has placed it in?”
So What Should a Declining Church Do?
Before launching another program, changing the music, remodeling the building, redesigning the website, or hiring another staff member, I believe a declining church should begin with honest questions.
1. Leadership
Do we have the leadership capacity to shepherd the congregation we actually have? Is the pastor spiritually healthy? Is he supported? Are there other leaders being developed? Is the pastor carrying responsibilities that should be shared?
2. Community engagement
Does our community actually know us? Are we serving people beyond our walls? Are relationships being formed? Are we known as people who genuinely love our neighbors?
3. Discipleship
Are we making disciples or merely conducting religious activities? Are people becoming more like Christ? Are believers being taught to study Scripture, pray, serve, witness, and disciple others?
4. Evangelism
Are we personally reaching people with the gospel? Not simply hoping for visitors. Not merely advertising an event. Not merely praying that someone walks through the door. Are our members actually developing relationships with people who need Christ?
5. Programs
Are our programs accomplishing biblical purposes? If they are, strengthen them.
If they aren’t, change them. If they are consuming resources without accomplishing their intended purpose, have the courage to let them go.
6. Honesty
And finally: Are we willing to believe what the evidence tells us?
This may be the hardest question of all. Because diagnosis is only useful if we are willing to act on what we discover.
We Don’t Need Panic. We Need Honest Diagnosis.
The latest research gives us neither a reason for panic nor a reason for complacency.
CNN is right to call attention to the serious number of churches facing closure.
Hartford is right to point out that American congregational life is showing signs of resilience and recovery. Both realities can exist simultaneously. And perhaps that is the most important lesson.
The American church is not one church.
Some congregations are growing. Some are declining. Some are adapting. Some are thriving. Some are struggling. Some are dying. The answer is not to find the latest successful church and copy it. Nor is the answer to dismiss every declining church as “dead.” And it certainly isn’t to assume that attendance alone tells us whether a congregation is healthy.
My doctoral research identified five areas that were prominent in the revitalization of two declining Independent Baptist churches:
leadership,
community engagement,
discipleship,
evangelism, and
programmatic emphasis.
Hartford’s much larger national research does not prove that these five characteristics constitute a formula for church growth. But it does help sharpen the questions we should ask about them. Leadership must be more than having a preacher. Community engagement must be more than activity. Discipleship must extend beyond Sunday. Evangelism must become more than the desire to attract visitors. Programs must serve the mission rather than replace it. And beneath all five must be something greater: biblical spiritual health.
The Church Still Has a Future
There is one thing I do not want readers to take away from all these statistics: despair.
The fact that some churches are closing does not mean Christ has abandoned His Church. The fact that some churches are growing does not mean America has experienced revival. The fact that Hartford found a rise in median attendance does not mean the crisis is over. And the fact that thousands of congregations face serious challenges does not mean those churches are beyond hope.
Churches can recover.
Churches can repent.
Pastors can endure.
Believers can be discipled.
Lost people can be reached.
Communities can be served.
Broken relationships can be restored.
Buildings can be repurposed.
Ministries can be refocused.
And declining congregations can, by God’s grace, experience renewal.
That is why church revitalization matters. We are not trying to save an institution from extinction. We are trying to help local churches honestly assess where they are, return to biblical priorities, and faithfully fulfill the mission Christ has entrusted to them.
The Church is not dying.But some churches are. And that should not make us afraid. It should make us willing to ask the hard questions.
Because when the pews grow quiet, the pulpit must grow clear.
And when a church begins to decline, the first response should not be another program. It should be prayer. It should be Scripture. It should be honesty. It should be diagnosis. And then, where there is still life and opportunity, it should be faithful revitalization.
Sources and Further Reading
The following sources provide the principal research and reporting behind this article. The distinction between primary research and secondary reporting is important: the research reports provide the underlying data, while news reports provide context and examples.
Primary Research
Hartford Institute for Religion Research / Faith Communities Today. Signs of Rebound Amid Uneven Recovery: The Changing Congregational Landscape. 2026. This national study is based on responses from 7,453 congregations across 79 denominations and faith traditions and provides the principal national congregational data discussed in this article. Read the Hartford congregational study
Hartford Institute for Religion Research / EPIC. Spiritual But Also Religious? Examining the Religious and Spiritual Practices of US Church Attenders. 2026. This study examines more than 24,000 church attenders from more than 80 Christian denominations and provides the individual-level data discussed in the section on discipleship. Read the Hartford attender research
Madaris, Brent. Characteristics Identified That Contributed to the Survival and Revitalization of Two Independent Baptist Churches: A Multiple Case Study. Doctoral dissertation, Pensacola Theological Seminary, 2024. Available through Zenodo. Access the dissertation
Church Closure and Congregational Change
Lifeway Research. “Lifeway Research Finds Church Closures Eclipse Openings.” January 13, 2026. Lifeway’s analysis estimated approximately 3,800 new Protestant churches and 4,000 closures in 2024, resulting in a net decline of approximately 200 congregations. The analysis drew upon information from 35 denominations and faith groups representing approximately 58% of U.S. Protestant churches. Read the Lifeway analysis
Blake, John. “A ‘Tsunami’ of Church Closings Is Poised to Remake America.” CNN, October 1, 2026. The article provides the contemporary reporting context for the discussion of church closures, demographic change, congregational decline, and the challenges associated with maintaining aging church properties. (KION Central Coast)
Religious Demographic Context
Pew Research Center. “2023-24 Religious Landscape Study: Executive Summary.” February 26, 2025. Pew’s national study reports that 62% of U.S. adults identify as Christian and 29% as religiously unaffiliated. These figures provide demographic context but should not be confused with measures of weekly worship attendance, biblical orthodoxy, conversion, or active local-church participation. Read the Pew Research Center report
Hometown Hope Ministry Resources
Madaris, Brent. “Two Paths to Renewal: What Church Revitalization Research Teaches About God’s Work in Declining Churches.” Hometown Hope Ministries, November 8, 2025. This article provides a more accessible discussion of the 2024 dissertation and compares its findings with other church-revitalization research. Read the Hometown Hope research summary
Madaris, Brent. “Evangelism and Church Revitalization: Why ‘Oikos’ Still Works Today.” Hometown Hope Ministries.This resource develops the relationship between evangelism and the broader revitalization framework used in this article.
Madaris, Brent. "Church Closures - Why 15,000 Churches Could Close — and What We Can Do About It" Hometown Hope Ministries. This article looks at the article that Axios put out in September 2025 titled, 15,000 Churches Could Close This Year Amid Religious Shift in U.S. My Analysis is here. https://www.hometownhopeministriesinc.com/post/church-closures-why-15-000-churches-are-closing
A Note About the Evidence
No single study provides a complete definition of a healthy church. The Hartford research is particularly valuable because of its breadth, while my doctoral research is valuable for a different reason: it examines the experience of two specific Independent Baptist congregations that moved through decline and revitalization.
The two should therefore not be treated as though they prove the same thing.
Hartford helps us understand the national landscape. My research helps us examine characteristics associated with revitalization in two local churches. Scripture remains the ultimate standard by which the spiritual health and faithfulness of a local church must be evaluated.
That distinction is essential. Research can help us diagnose. It cannot replace the authority of Scripture.
Comments