A conversation about church restoration with Mark Dever and Jonathan Liman

Jonathan: Mark, let's talk about church restoration. To start, I'd like you to draw a before-and-after for Capitol Hill Baptist Church—a snapshot of what it was then and what it is now.

Mark: In 1993, the pastor who had served me left the ministry under not very good circumstances. And the congregation itself was located in the heart of a city that was then considered the murder capital of the United States. Since the 1960s, people have been moving to the suburbs en masse, so many inner-city churches have declined: some simply moved out, others have closed and sold their buildings. The church on Capitol Hill was no exception; it had become a church for the elderly.

Jonathan: What was the church like at that time?

Mark: As I said, they were mostly elderly people. The building was in poor condition. But the people were faithful—they genuinely loved the Lord. I can’t say they had been taught well over the years, and they had had a change of pastor almost continuously. They were all evangelical believers, with one exception. They all believed the Bible.

I think the community was more held together by cultural things: communal meals, a certain style of music, programs, activities. And I think they got a sense of importance from where the church building was located—just a few blocks from the Supreme Court and the Capitol. This gave them the feeling, as if we are in a place that has special significance for the spread of the Gospel.

Because of that, they had a big emphasis on evangelism, Billy Graham-style, with calls to repentance and all that. They also had missionaries, most of whom had gone on missions in the 1950s, when the pastor was a Columbia College graduate. It was under his leadership that the church experienced a great revival of missionary activity. So I came into the church with a long history of faithfulness.

Jonathan: And how many people regularly attended church at that time?

Mark: About 130 people, most of them between the ages of 70 and 75.

Jonathan: More than twenty years have passed. What does the church on Capitol Hill look like now?

Mark: Now most of the church members live not in the suburbs but here on the Hill. Last time we counted, 55% of our members lived within a mile of the building. When I first came in, there were very few; even most of the previous pastors lived in the parsonage (church) somewhere in Virginia.

The church has also gotten a lot younger. The average age is probably around 30 now. We've made the most of the space we have, so now on Sunday mornings we have about a thousand people coming in—and the building is practically full.

And let me say this separately: a full house is a great blessing for ministering to other churches. Because when you are full, you no longer have to maintain the myth that you are the only «normal» church in town. You are free to direct people to churches that are closer to home. We can help find good churches or help create them if they don’t already exist.

Jonathan: What about evangelization and missions? Has anything changed in these areas?

Mark: As for evangelism, I think much has remained the same. We no longer do the pulpit-fronted calls to repentance, but I try to address the audience in every sermon with a call to repentance and belief as sincerely as any preacher before me. I often say something like, «If you are here today and are not yet a believer, we would be happy to give you a copy of Greg Gilbert’s book Who is Jesus? — so that you can read it.» We pray and expect fruit from this.

Jonathan: What about personal evangelism? Are church members sharing the Gospel more, or perhaps less?

Mark: I can’t say for sure, but I think it was more. When I came in, the church was pretty focused on an «event» culture. We tried to attract people through advertising—on the radio, in the newspapers—or we would organize some big event so that people would come and hear the Gospel from a «professional preacher.».

But I have tried—through prayer, love, and, I admit, a little remorse—to encourage people to realize their personal responsibility to share the Gospel. We want to teach our members so that they know the Gospel well and can speak about it easily and naturally. So that it is not somewhere far away, but right on their lips. So that they understand it so deeply that they can skillfully and naturally convey the essence in ordinary conversation. So that the Gospel comes from their lips easily and sincerely.

And regarding missions, I will say it briefly: we support fewer missionaries (married couples), but with more financial assistance.

Jonathan: What is the advantage of this approach?

Mark: We don't want people to spend most of their time collecting donations. If we believe in a person, instead of sending them $500 a year, we give them $35,000 or $70,000 every year — like an employee.

This frees them from the constant fundraising and allows them to truly engage in missionary work. It also clearly defines our relationship: they have a responsibility to us, and we have a responsibility to them.

Jonathan: Moving on to the somewhat vague concept of «church culture.» Are there any other ways to describe changes in church culture—then and now?

Mark: I haven’t been here before, so it’s hard for me to judge. But the church I found was very friendly, very welcoming—in that Southern, country style that some of its members came from. Now, the hospitality that characterizes our church is not explained by cultural traditions. It’s a conscious hospitality—often to people with whom you have almost nothing in common.

Previously, the main topics of conversation were probably family and football. Today, I think, it's sermons, and discipleship, and opportunities for evangelism, and questions about faith, and the struggle with sin - all of which, I hope, sounds open and sincere.

Jonathan: So, you've been serving here for 21 years. Do you consider yourself a "church restorer"? Would you call yourself that?

Mark: I’ve probably called myself a «church restorer,» and I’m sure others have called me that more often. I certainly support the cause of church restoration. But sometimes I wonder how useful the very term «restorer» is. Perhaps it presupposes too much success in ministry, leaving aside the reality of the next pastor who will have to carry on the work.

So I doubt how correct the title «church restorer» is. Of course, we seek restoration, we pray that God will revive and strengthen His Church. But to say in advance: «I will restore this church» is arrogance, it is pride. We can honestly say that we seek this, pray for this, work for this.

Sometimes I am asked, «Can we replicate what happened here?» I have also heard the following criticism: «Mark is a good minister, but he simply does not realize that he has a special gift. He thinks it is about the “Nine Signs,” when in fact it is simply God’s grace—and here he is inspiring many young pastors with these “signs,” and nothing works out for them.».

I think I understand at least part of what you're talking about. But I want to make three observations.

First, if I dedicate myself to the ministry of prayer and the Word, like the apostles in Acts 6, then it is entirely possible to replicate it. There is nothing unique about it that is unique to me or to this church.

Second, the things we practice as a church—our ministries, our theology, our understanding of the nature of the church, church organization, membership—all of these can also be replicated. We don't have anything special that works only here.

But thirdly, if by "reproducibility" they mean: "Do these things - and you will definitely get these fruits," then I would say: no, in that sense nothing is reproducible.

It is not in our hands, it is in the hands of the Holy Spirit. I have never thought, "Because we practice consistent expository preaching, we have a packed church and people are constantly being converted.". I'm not even tempted by the thought, for I am sure that there are pastors who preach better than I do, who observe church discipline much more carefully—and their churches are not filled. This is the blessing of the Holy Spirit.

But we are tempted to say, «Oh, look at this awakening! I’ll take it apart, understand how it happened, and then find some extraordinary methods to get the same extraordinary results.“.

Yes, it is perfectly right to seek, pray for, and work for extraordinary blessings. But the way to do this is not through gigantic prayer meetings, not through anything unusual or extraordinary. It is through the ordinary daily and weekly means of grace: preaching the Word of God, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, participation in the local church, the fruits of the Spirit.

It is in these ordinary things that we must be faithful. And then it is up to God if He wishes to give an extraordinary blessing. So I believe that the word "restoration" of a church should only be used in retrospect - to describe what God did to some churches when they got a new pastor.

Jonathan: So, looking back, did God really restore this church?

Mark: Certainly, in a sense yes. But even so, I am a little uncomfortable saying that before I came, this church was completely lifeless. It was an evangelical church; the Gospel was preached here. Sociologically and demographically, the circumstances were difficult, but I sincerely appreciate the loyalty that was maintained here. However, judging by many external criteria, yes, this church was restored.

But remember what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: «I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth» (1 Cor. 3:6). So if you really want to identify who was the «restorer,» it is God. He is the one who restores.

Jonathan: So, to sum up: are you in favor of pastors dedicating themselves to the work of restoring churches?

Mark: Absolutely. I am very grateful to the Church Restoration Center and the Department of Working with Existing Churches (in Need) at the Northern Baptist Mission. I am grateful for all these new initiatives because they are a good way to support the faithfulness of pastors in difficult circumstances. I just have a few questions about the terminology we use and the assumptions behind these words.

Because there is a certain pride in thinking, "I can do it!" but it is all the work of the Holy Spirit. You can pray that God will give a revival in a new church. You can have a series of meetings where Bob (a powerful preacher) will come every night and preach. But you cannot appoint the Holy Spirit to save seventeen souls. Much less a hundred and seventy.

And when we begin to judge the effectiveness of ministry by its outward results, we hear stories of large churches in the South sending out beautiful people to the front of the baptismal call to action to psychologically nudge others to come out and make a decision. This is anti-gospel. The irony is that such a church believes it exists for nonbelievers. And perhaps it does serve nonbelievers—but not quite in the way it imagines.

In other words, we shouldn't be too dependent on "metrics" when talking about church renewal.

Jonathan: Let's go back a little bit to your experience. When you first arrived at this church, how did you assess its condition? Did you have any strategy for starting the ministry? This is often called a "vision." So what was your vision? Did you have a plan?

Mark: Preach, pray, work and stay.

I wanted to preach the Word, preparing seriously for the sermon every week. I wanted to pray daily, especially for the members of our church by name. I wanted to love people, build personal relationships, and mentor the brothers.

And finally, I wanted to be prepared to stay here forever. When you start a ministry in a new place, it's almost certain that it won't be filled with older people. It's unlikely to be filled with established families, unless they've just moved into town.

Growth is likely to come from those at a different stage of life: young people out of college, people who have come here for work. So it is natural that the first growth of the church is among those who have not yet taken root in the local community.

And the question is: How do we move from this initial stage to a stable, full-fledged community that is a mature witness to the presence of Christ? It takes years. Some will be with us for five or ten years—and God will use them to move the work forward. And some will stay for decades. I have members who have been in the church for 20 years—and they sincerely share the pain of saying goodbye to friends many times. I understand their sadness, because I have been through it myself. But I see it as the «price of membership.».

This doesn't mean you have to become callous or withdrawn. I believe it's possible to have an emotionally healthy and fulfilling life even in a church where many people move on after five or ten years.

But someone has to stay. The «stay» component is often overlooked, even though it is extremely important.

Jonathan: It sounds like you’re more of a parent than an entrepreneur. Most church growth talks sound like business plans built on metrics. And you’re talking about raising a child who goes through different periods and stages.

Mark: The more we reduce ministry to a business model, the more pastors start to think like CEOs instead of pastors. They think, "I want to play in the big leagues—I need a bigger platform.".

But if you think differently, like, «Oh, Bob seems to be softening his heart toward the Gospel. He’s trying to reach out to people even though it’s physically difficult. He’s still loving sacrificially even though his circumstances have changed. That glorifies God!» that’s a different mindset. These things aren’t so easy to measure with numbers. But that’s real spiritual growth.

And this will undoubtedly irritate some in the church. But it is the ministers who must have the maturity to see ahead, to take the long view into account—and to remember that the ultimate Evaluator of all will be God.

Jonathan: What were the first difficulties you encountered?

Mark: Because we didn't have a pastor's council, many issues became real crises. If we had several recognized pastors, there would be much more peace in the church. Without that, any issue was perceived as a threat because I was the only obvious source of authority.

I didn’t think that was a healthy situation for the church. I didn’t think it was going to be good for the church in the long run. And I didn’t think it was biblical. There are countless specific situations, but it’s not about the individual issues—it’s about the structure that has opened the door to unnecessary and excessive hardship.

Jonathan: Were there moments when you felt like the "ship was turning around"?

Mark: So, when we went from having only me as the officially recognized pastor to having six recognized pastors, that was a turning point. It became a lifeline for both me and the church. From that point on, it was much harder to jeopardize the unity or direction of the church with any one decision.

Jonathan: So if you were to make a list of the most important things for a young pastor going into a church that needs restoration, what would be on that list?

Mark: Preach good sermons, gradually introduce plurality of pastors, and be careful with church membership.

Jonathan: Are you saying this in the context of America, or do you mean that this is relevant for the church in Brazil, Afghanistan, Japan?

Mark: I can't imagine a culture where these things aren't a faithful reflection of Scripture. So yes, it applies to every spot on the planet.

Jonathan: What mistakes have you made? And what lessons have you learned from them?

Mark: I don’t think I always had a clear idea of what a decision might actually «cost.» I had my own opinions on women’s ministry, small groups, radio programs, Sunday school for older sisters, Wednesday Communion, the American and Christian flags… I could go on. On the surface, these things seemed to have one «cost,» but in reality, they had another, much higher one. With a council of pastors by my side, I probably would have seen it better.

I often say that young men have sharp vision but poor depth of focus. And that was me. I could clearly see what was right and what was wrong, but I had no idea how to get there. Young ministers need older brothers to help them with that.

Jonathan: Do you think a special type of pastor is needed for this kind of ministry—«pulling the church out of decline»?

Mark: It depends on the nature of the church itself. But if you have a tendency to be conflicted, if you have sharp edges, if your wife would tell me that you are one of those people, then perhaps you would be better off starting a new church or joining an already healthy one. But if you find yourself in a community that really needs serious change, then first you have to learn to rejoice in what is already good in it, and not immediately point out everything that is wrong.

If that grace is not something that God has naturally gifted you with—or God has not yet formed it in your soul—then you will have a very hard time. I know people who are very doctrinal. They have only two modes.

Jonathan: What exactly are the two modes?

Mark: Right or wrong. Every week I get asked something, and I say, "I don't know." And I'm perfectly fine with that. Every time I say, "I don't know," I dispel any illusions that I'm God.

Jonathan: Last question: How does this ministry of restoration affect the wife and children? What should be considered in this regard?

Mark: If you have any expectations for your wife and children, it is best to make them as clear as possible. So that you can either accept them or reject them outright. Your wife should not feel that she is competing with your ministry—especially if your ministry is connected to the church. The church can find another pastor. But your wife cannot find another husband. And you should know this more deeply than she does.

Your wife must be like-minded, otherwise you risk giving her heart a reason to distance herself not only from the church, but perhaps from the Lord. So you must be willing to take the blame.

Men need to think long-term. If they don't, they risk damaging not only their family relationships but also their wives' faith in the church. Because, truth be told, success is often a harder test for a family than failure. Success brings with it a host of seemingly good things that start competing for your time.

But families rarely function like projects. Yes, they can thrive, but it's usually accompanied by a lot of struggle. Victories don't come so quickly. And then the man is tempted to say, "I'll go back to where I saw results, where I was thanked, where I was achieving something. And here it's just exhaustion and a feeling of being unappreciated.".

For a pastor restoring a church, this ministry can become a very dangerous trap.