Church Splits and Their Effects

 

As can be seen from seen from Thom Rainer’s article, “Nine Thoughts on Church Splits” and David Brigg’s article, “Churches That Split Survive the Trauma,” there is some difference of opinion on the detrimental effects of a church split.

The Episcopal church that I helped to plant and pioneer in 1980s and 1990s experienced a church split in 2001. The church split was not tied to any of the issues that divided the Episcopal Church at that time, but the split did weaken the church. It would in a space of six years go from a rapidly growing self-supporting parish to a stagnant subsidized mission. It would not bounce back from the effects of the split and subsequent developments at the denominational level in the issues dividing the denomination would further weaken the church and other churches across the diocese.

From what I have seen, not all churches that are formed by a breakaway group flourish as David Brigg’s article appears to suggest. The four churches which were formed by breakaway groups and of which I have some knowledge do not exist today. A number of factors contributed to their failure to survive.

Among these factors was that they lacked a compelling positive vision. They saw themselves as a safe haven from changes in the denomination which their members did not welcome: Prayer Book revision, women’s ordination, the ordination of gays and lesbians, and same sex marriage. They were targeted at a relatively small base, people like themselves, and were not mission-minded. They showed little or no interest in meeting non-believers, much less having conversations with them or forming friendships with them. 

The survival rate for new church plants is also not high According to research done in the first decade of this century, the survival rate for new church plants dropped from 99 % in the first year to 61 % in the fourth year. A key factor was expectations. The COVID-19 pandemic may have significantly reduced these percentages.

I have been a part of four successful church plants. Among the things these churches had in common is that they sought to reach and engage a much broader base and built bridges with the communities in which they were located. They took an interest in the community and identified community needs and met them. They came to be seen as a part of the community.