(Blog) A Theological Shift & Its Failed Purpose - Ep. 987 - September 30, 2026

Progressive Christianity and a Failed Theological Shift

Churches changed their theology to attract younger people, yet their congregations continued to shrink. In Episode 987 of The Smith and Rowland Show, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland argue that the pursuit of cultural relevance weakened the biblical authority those churches needed to preserve.

If you grew up in a mainline church, that decline reaches beyond membership totals to family traditions, familiar teachings, and congregations that once shaped their communities. Smith and Rowland begin with that history before examining the theological changes they believe failed to achieve their purpose.

How Mainline Protestant Churches Shaped American Life

The discussion draws on an article titled "Progressive Christianity, the Mainline Membership Decline," which presents Christian Faith Archive's argument about theological change and church membership. Its starting point is the central place mainline Protestant churches once occupied in American public life.

Smith and Rowland emphasize that these congregations influenced much more than Sunday worship. Their members included presidents, senators, and university leaders. Churches also established hospitals and colleges and supported missionaries around the world.

The "Seven Sisters" of American Protestantism

The episode identifies seven denominations commonly called the "Seven Sisters":

• The United Methodist Church.
• The Episcopal Church.
• The Presbyterian Church (USA).
• The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).
• The United Church of Christ (UCC).
• The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).
• The American Baptist Churches USA.

These denominations grew out of older American church traditions. The hosts also discuss the broader Baptist heritage and the divisions that developed within Protestant denominations.

Colleges, Hospitals, and Public Leadership

Methodist institutions helped build a network of colleges and universities. Presbyterian history includes Princeton, while Episcopal institutions had strong connections to American presidents.

Smith and Rowland also point to Harvard and other Ivy League institutions as examples of higher education's church roots and its early concern with preparing ministers.

For the hosts, those institutions show how church life shaped American society. They connect the weakening of that foundation with changes in culture and public policy, arguing that declining Christian influence has consequences beyond church membership.

Membership Loss and the Fading Place of Sunday

According to the Christian Faith Archive figures discussed in the episode, the Presbyterian Church (USA) has lost roughly 75% of its peak membership. The article places that loss within a broader contraction among historic mainline Protestant denominations.

Smith and Rowland see those numbers as evidence of a larger change in American life. They remember a time when Sunday carried a different set of expectations: stores stayed closed, and people avoided ordinary activities such as mowing the lawn or going fishing because they regarded Sunday as the Lord's Day.

Their point isn't that every earlier custom must return unchanged. Rather, they reject the assumption that abandoning those practices has made the country better off.

The article's central argument is sharper still: progressive theological changes accelerated the losses they were intended to prevent. That claim gives the episode its focus. The hosts want to examine what churches changed, why they changed it, and whether those decisions helped congregations survive.

Four Theological Debates That Gained Momentum in the 1960s

Smith and Rowland connect this discussion to their earlier episode on moralistic therapeutic deism, or MTD. They describe progressive Christianity as a further stage of the same movement away from established Christian doctrine.

The article locates a sustained theological shift in the 1960s and the decades that followed. It identifies four areas of debate:

• Biblical authority.
• Human sexuality.
• The uniqueness of Christ.
• The nature of salvation.

The hosts treat these questions as connected. A church's understanding of Scripture, they argue, determines how it approaches sexuality, Christ's identity, and salvation.

They also contrast churches that retained traditional teachings with branches that chose a more progressive direction. Their concern is that theological change became a strategy for attracting people rather than a response to what Scripture teaches.

Because of that, they place biblical authority first. In their view, once a congregation loses confidence in God's Word, every other doctrine becomes open to revision.

Why Biblical Authority Comes First

Smith and Rowland describe the authority and inerrancy of Scripture as the foundation of Christian teaching. They argue that a church must have confidence that it possesses the written Word of God before it can speak with confidence about doctrine.

Their discussion includes concern about the growing number of Bible translations. They question the assumption that a translation is better simply because readers find it easier, smoother, or more appealing.

In their view, that emphasis can weaken confidence in the text's authority. They also contend that some translations weaken the presentation of doctrines such as the virgin birth.

The hosts then identify biblical accounts they see people increasingly dismissing: Jesus' virgin birth, Moses and the parting of the Red Sea, and Jonah being swallowed by the great fish. They describe the skeptical response to these accounts as a symptom of declining trust in Scripture.

Their argument is that a church's view of Scripture shapes its other beliefs. If biblical authority falls, they say, the remaining doctrinal questions no longer have a settled foundation.

That conviction also explains their approach to Bible study. They describe their governing interpretive principle in plain terms: when God says something, they accept it as true. Cultural preferences don't determine whether that statement remains authoritative.

Misunderstanding Scripture Can Become an Objection to It

The hosts also argue that disagreement with Scripture often begins with a failure to understand it.

Smith illustrates the point with his experience in algebra. He recalls struggling with the subject and jokes that he has the failing papers to prove it. However, his inability to understand a solution didn't give him grounds to declare that solution wrong.

He applies the same reasoning to biblical interpretation. A reader's confusion, he argues, doesn't establish that Scripture is mistaken.

Dispensationalism becomes another example. Smith and Rowland say they've heard people criticize it while using arguments that already depend on dispensational distinctions. In their assessment, those objections reveal confusion about the teaching itself.

They connect this problem with Matthew 13 and its concern with understanding. That leads into a separate part of the conversation: whether the theological shift also reflects a form of spiritual blindness.

Israel, Spiritual Blindness, and the Church

Smith and Rowland interpret the church's theological changes through their dispensational understanding of biblical prophecy.

They refer to Paul's statement that partial blindness has affected Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Against that background, they consider whether blindness is beginning to lift from Israel while increasing within the church.

Netanyahu's Remarks at the United Nations

The hosts recount remarks by Benjamin Netanyahu challenging protesters over their response to the persecution of Christians. In their account, he contrasted the treatment of Christians in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East with the ability of Christian communities to live and thrive in Israel.

Rowland regards Netanyahu's positive reference to Christians as significant. Both hosts also acknowledge the longstanding divide between Jewish and Christian understandings of Jesus as Messiah.

They interpret those developments as consistent with their belief that Israel's spiritual blindness is beginning to lift.

Mockery of Christ's Return

The conversation then turns to Peter and Jude, including their warnings about mockers in the last days. Smith and Rowland connect ridicule of Christ's promised return with growing blindness in the church.

They suggest that the spiritual blindness they associate with Israel is now affecting Christian congregations. Within their prophetic framework, this belongs to the approaching events surrounding the Day of the Lord and their pre-tribulation understanding.

This is their theological interpretation of the shift. They see declining confidence in Scripture as both a doctrinal problem and a spiritual one.

Cultural Relevance Was Supposed to Bring Young People Back

According to the hosts, churches began noticing a change in their age demographics during the 1960s. Older people continued attending, but fewer younger people were joining them.

Church leaders recognized a problem. Smith and Rowland argue that many responded by trying to make their churches more culturally acceptable, including changes to theology.

Smith recalls hearing the same concern in elders' and deacons' meetings over decades: the church wasn't relevant enough to the surrounding culture. He believes that concern eventually became a reason to change what churches taught.

The episode contrasts two attendance figures. Smith states that 50 years earlier, 52% of Americans sat in a church pew on Sunday, compared with 8% today. These are the figures he cites in the discussion, and the hosts use them to question the effectiveness of the changes they describe.

Their question follows directly from those numbers: if churches altered their approach to bring people in, why did attendance continue to fall?

They also contrast that strategy with what they see in Catholicism. Although they acknowledge disagreements with Catholic teaching, they credit the Catholic Church's growth around the world to its continuity. In their view, people are looking for something stable and dependable.

The hosts' criticism concerns the assumption that younger generations require different Christian truths. They argue that changing doctrine to match cultural expectations hasn't produced the intended result.

The Hippie Movement and the Jesus Movement

Smith and Rowland connect the theological changes of the 1960s with the hippie movement and its promotion of sexual freedom.

Their reasoning is that traditional biblical authority stood in conflict with the idea of unrestricted sexual behavior. Therefore, they see the questioning of Scripture and the changing approach to human sexuality as related developments.

At the same time, both hosts welcome the Jesus movement that emerged among people from that counterculture. They make clear that they rejoice when people came to Christ through it.

Their distinction concerns what conversion means. People, they argue, were to be saved out of that lifestyle, not unto it. The surrounding culture shouldn't become the model for Christian belief and conduct.

They also associate that period with changes in church music. However, they don't reject contemporary music because of its connection to that era. Instead, they examine what congregations lost when they stopped understanding the teaching purpose of older hymns.

How Hymns and Church Art Taught the Bible

Smith and Rowland describe older hymns as theology set to music. Their value, they explain, wasn't limited to familiarity or tradition.

Many people historically lacked easy access to Bibles, and some couldn't read them even when copies were available. Music gave congregations a way to learn and remember biblical teaching through repeated words.

Hymns Helped Congregations Remember Doctrine

The hosts mention hymn writers such as Wesley and Luther. They also recall Luther's high regard for music as a means of teaching the Word of God.

Because people could memorize songs, hymns helped carry doctrine into congregational life. Repetition made biblical truths familiar even to worshippers who couldn't study a written text themselves.

For that reason, the hosts object to dismissing old hymns without understanding what they taught. Their concern is that churches can lose biblical instruction when they discard songs merely because they're old.

Church Murals Taught Biblical Stories

Smith offers a related example from Mexico. He describes Catholic churches with biblical stories painted on their ceilings and walls.

He then recalls Mike, a man who had worked for him for 45 years and couldn't read or write. Smith was struck by how much Scripture Mike knew.

Mike explained that his mother had taken him to different churches throughout Mexico as a child. She used the paintings to teach him Bible stories, sometimes spending several Sundays at one church before visiting another.

The example supports the hosts' point: church art and music helped communicate Scripture when reading wasn't an option.

Contemporary Worship Can Preserve the Same Biblical Purpose

Both hosts state that they aren't opposed to contemporary worship music. They sing it themselves, and they see room for new songs alongside older hymns.

Their example is Amy Grant's "Thy Word." The song draws on the Psalms: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path."

For Smith and Rowland, that is a contemporary song carrying forward the older purpose of teaching and singing Scripture.

Their concern is that some newer songs emphasize making worshippers feel good. They acknowledge that songs celebrating God's goodness can be sincere and valuable. However, they don't want emotional effect to replace biblical content as the purpose of congregational music.

They also defend both singing directly to God and singing about God to other people. Rowland compares the latter with preaching: a preacher speaks to people about the Lord, and a song can do the same.

"You don't have to destroy the old to have the new."

That statement summarizes their position on worship. Churches can welcome contemporary songs without throwing away older songs that continue to teach biblical truth.

The loss they identify is a loss of purpose. When a congregation no longer understands why earlier believers sang certain hymns, it becomes easier to discard the teaching those hymns contain.

What an "Invisible" Church Can't Provide Locally

The discussion also challenges the idea that belonging to the universal body of Christ makes local church attendance unnecessary.

Rowland expresses frustration with the claim that believers don't need to gather with a congregation. He connects that thinking with the attendance decline the hosts describe.

Their criticism has a practical side. People don't support an invisible congregation through local giving, and they can't call an invisible pastor to visit or pray with them. The hosts argue that a believer's connection to the body of Christ doesn't remove the need for a real congregation and its ministry.

They also question choosing a church mainly because it offers somewhere to drop off children on Sunday. Rowland describes cases in which childcare appears to drive the choice of congregation.

His concern is the place of biblical teaching in that decision. He argues that children need to hear Scripture preached and learn Christian truth, rather than have church function primarily as a daycare.

For both hosts, local church life includes responsibilities and relationships that an abstract claim of belonging cannot replace.

Empty Congregations Leave Empty Buildings

Smith and Rowland connect falling attendance with the closure and sale of church buildings.

They describe former churches becoming restaurants, bars, or mosques. Those changes trouble them because buildings that once housed active congregations no longer function as places of Christian worship.

They also recall visiting an empty Presbyterian church in the mountains. They say the church began in 1933, but no congregation was meeting there when they visited.

The building had already developed two roof leaks. With no one maintaining it, even the structure was beginning to deteriorate.

That example makes their concern concrete. A church's disappearance leaves more than an attendance statistic. In this case, it left an unused building without people to care for it.

The hosts see similar closures occurring across America. They connect them to the loss of confidence in Scripture and to decisions that changed church teaching in hopes of attracting a different generation.

The Warning They Heard from Wales

The episode compares American church closures with the aftermath of the Welsh revival in the early 1900s.

Rowland recalls Evan Roberts as a young preacher whom God used in that revival. He describes Roberts delivering a four-point message after a Sunday service, with repentance and returning to God at its center.

In the hosts' account, revival led to the construction of large churches seating 1,500 or 2,000 people. They also recount reports of crime falling so sharply that police formed gospel quartets to sing at revival meetings.

Yet they say many of those churches later became empty or turned into warehouses.

Rowland remembers friends traveling to Wales through Talbert Moore's Gospel Preachers Association in the 1990s. When they returned, they warned that the same thing could happen in America if Christians allowed the light to go out.

Smith and Rowland believe that warning is now taking shape in American communities. Their visit to the abandoned Presbyterian church gives them a local example of the loss they associate with Wales.

The Hosts' Response: Keep Preaching the Same Truth

Smith and Rowland's proposed response begins with the authority of God's Word. They argue that truth doesn't change because a generation's preferences change.

Rowland expresses that conviction through several direct statements: what was sin 50 years ago remains sin today, Jesus remains the Savior, and His ability to save hasn't diminished.

He strongly rejects changing preaching to fit the surrounding culture, describing that approach as a "satanically tainted" idea. Smith shares the underlying concern that cultural acceptance has become a reason to revise doctrine.

At the same time, their defense of contemporary worship shows that they don't equate every new form with theological compromise. They make room for new songs when those songs preserve biblical truth.

The hosts also place responsibility on church leaders. They point out that young people didn't make many of the decisions to change church teaching; older leaders made those choices in hopes of reaching them.

Their appeal is therefore directed toward the church's own decisions: restore confidence in Scripture, teach it clearly, and retain practices that help congregations understand it.

A Shift That Didn't Achieve Its Purpose

Smith and Rowland judge the theological shift by the purpose churches gave it: reaching younger people and preventing decline. In their assessment, changing doctrine for cultural acceptance failed that test.

Their central concern is confidence in Scripture. New forms of worship can have a place, but the hosts argue that churches lose their foundation when cultural preferences determine what they preach.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), A Theological Shift & Its Failed Purpose - Ep. 987 - September 30, 2026"