Hadaway’s data on growing vs dying churches surfaces this consistently: the fastest-growing churches are hard right or hard left — theologically or culturally specific. The ones bleeding members are in the middle, trying to be everything to everyone.
The intuition is to make church as broadly appealing as possible. The data says the opposite: broad appeal is appeal to no one.
This makes psychological sense. People don’t join communities that stand for everything. They join communities that stand for something specific, and then choose whether that something resonates with them. Vague community is worse than no community, because at least nothing gives you something to respond to.
The lesson isn’t to become theologically harsh or culturally hostile. The lesson is that MNFC needs a clear answer to “what makes this community specific?” Not just a mission statement, but a distinctive culture, a distinctive claim, a distinctive reason someone would drive 30 minutes for this rather than the church three blocks from their house.
The Unificationist message has inherent specificity. True Parents, the Blessing, Divine Principle’s account of history and purpose — these are not vague. The question is whether MNFC communicates that specificity in a way that makes it feel like invitation rather than demand.