I’ve been in a fairly reflective mood lately, thinking about and reading a lot about everything that I feel ‘challenges’ me. This is very fun!
One of the thing that challenges me most is groups like Forge, discussions on ‘emerging church’, and the idea of community leadership, rather than team leadership type idea’s. The reason these idea’s challenge me so much is because I believe they have a LOT of merit. I am very excitedly watching a few friends and aquaintances try ‘new’ expressions of church, re-define the concept of ’success’ and question all that we call ‘mainstream’ or ‘traditional’ or ‘institutional’ church. I believe these people will only strengthen God’s church (that is the body of believers) and I honestly believe there will be many people who find faith who wouldn’t have otherwise because of their approach.
Something that I was thinking about today, however, is a statistic that is often used (and I have to say especially by me!) to, in some ways, discredit ‘church’ as it has been. This is the idea, backed up by SIGNIFICANT survey and annecdotal responses, that church as it ‘is’ will only ever effect 10% of people in Western society. The other 90% have no interest in this style of church at all. Now I have wholeheartedly embraced this idea ever since I first used it, and often use it myself. But lately I have found myself questioning this idea, mostly due to people I have met in my very own church. So I wish to throw out 2 ‘points’ that I wish to contend this figure with. I’d love to hear other peoples thoughts also!
1. Though I wholeheartedly believe in the idea of research and surveys as effective ways of assertaining trends and community thought, I wonder if it is as effective as many of us claim. Since moving to Margaret River and hearing the stories of some of the more ‘different’ Christians I have met, I have found that, for most of them, they would have been in the 90% who ‘would never darken the door of a church’ before they became a Christian. It was only after the conviction of the Holy Spirit and the genuine friendship with ‘church goers’ that this changed. Though there are definately people ‘not’ in church who would think about church, and may attend occassionaly, I think to say 90% ‘never would’ actually robs the Holy Spirit. After meeting these people (and many of them are now the MOST excited about being a part of a mainstream church) I reflected on other Christians I know who have ‘become Christian’ and, though many I know had Christian heritage of some sort, so probably fall in the 10%, many I know ALSO, for significant periods of their life, would probably have been in the 90%. I guess what I am trying to get at is, the 10/90 survey figure would be perfect, and would work well…if the work of the Holy Spirit were not PIVOTAL in the conviction of believers. I am actually starting to think it is impossible to say anything about a 10/90 figure WITHOUT saying the Holy Spirit could only get people in the ‘10′ to join established church.
2. The other point I’d like to make goes along with the above point. Many people would contend that the ‘90′ are not interested in ‘church’ because they look at church and it is just totally irrelevant to them. And this may be PART of the reason given as to why ‘church’ as it has been will not work in the 21st century, post christendom. They see it as an out-dated institutionalism that they want nothing to do with. And this is a fair call in many, many ways!
It is well documented (and I am sorry that I don’t have sources) that a lot of people in the 21st century are ok with ‘Jesus’ but not ok with ‘Church’. Gandhi is often the figurehead of this, famously quoted as saying “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Once again, this is a fair call.
What I am not entirely convinved of, however, is that the best response to this problem is to cater to the ‘wants’ of people, especially in such a consumeristic world. I wonder if peoples disatisfaction with church is more about it not being ‘exactly as they like it’ rather than it being irrelevant to them. Church is often lambasted for being like any other product, catering to peoples wants and needs, and I have experienced plenty of people who treat ‘church’ like a product, jumping from one to the other as they see fit. Many(if not all) churches themselves are guilty of perpetuating this by ‘often buying into this product mentality, being ’seeker-sensitive’, trying to be the biggest and the best. But I wonder if people who DON’T join in with church are no different to these people, only they treat church like it is a product they DON’T need, so they don’t bother getting involved with it?
I guess what I am trying to say is, though there is definately a ‘risk’ in church as it has been, and is currently, in that many people DO treat it as a product, I’m not convinced EVERYBODY does this, and I’m not convinced ‘changing’ the church method is the answer. Many ‘method’s’, both emerging and traditional, may work. The important thing is the ‘outlook’, that whatever style of church you are a part of, you are there because of your ‘faith’ and not because it fits your needs. Maybe we need more people sticking it out at one church for 20 years and more, regardless of if it ‘fits’ them or not?
I am only a part of ‘church’ because of my faith in Jesus. Whatever ‘church’ looks like, I am committed too, not because it is exactly how I’d like it to be (because it isn’t), but because I don’t think being a part of a church should be ABOUT that. Does everybody ‘fit’ mainstream church? No. Am I saying we should make everybody fit church? No. Am I saying everybody, whether they fit or not, should be FORCED into mainstream church? No! But there are a significant amount of the so called ‘90%’ who I believe would be FINE in traditional church, if they gave up on their consumeristic tendencies and pride and commitmentphobia.
I am all for new expressions of church. I have seen MANY people hurt by church. I know people who can definately be a part of, and commit to a different style much better than they ever would traditional church (i really hate that name!) and I’m cool with that! I’m just not convinced of the 10/90 figure, nor that the church I know and love is as out-dated as some people like to say it is.
Comments(2)
Sarah from 
