Church-As-We-Have-Known-It, Plus One
Part One
Mark Tidsworth, Founder and Team Leader
“Pursuing “church revitalization” suggests we believe the popular expressions of church are effective and relevant, only needing more energy or improved quality… while in fact the problem is the paradigm itself, going the way of all things (dying) so that new shapes, forms, and expressions of church can be born (resurrection). Time to leave familiar territory for the land we know not of O Church.” --Social Media Post, July 7, 2023
After posting the above thought on social media, the various responses indicated this is a sensitive topic, requiring clarity. So, I’m glad to have the opportunity to unpack this post, describing more clearly what I mean (Parts 1 and 2), along with a strong missional suggestion for those churches who may be so inclined (Part 3).
So first, let’s consider the first part of the first sentence in this post: Pursuing “church revitalization” suggests we believe the popular expressions of church are effective and relevant, only needing more energy or improved quality…
First, defining or describing several phrases will help clarify my meaning.
Church revitalization = Seeking renewal of passion, energy, participation, mission, and organizational operations of the current church paradigm.
Effective and relevant = Yields transformation of individuals, the church itself, and the community toward the Way of Jesus, often with increased participation levels.
More energy and improved quality = Typically, when people believe the world is about the same as it has been, they see no need to innovate with church paradigms, but instead they believe increasing the energy and improving the quality of what the church already is and is doing is sufficient for revitalization.
Through these definitions or descriptions, one can see that this approach to church revitalization rests on several assumptions.
There are plenty of people in our community who will appreciate the traditional paradigm of church if they can just be exposed to it (taste and see). They share the same culture we do, appreciating church music and worship culture like us.
Though few people in this community are deciding to engage with our church, that’s because we are not engaging them well, not because of the limitations of our church paradigm. There are many unchurched or dechurched people who would resonate with the way we are church if they encountered us.
Our church paradigm was not formed by cultural influences, but is a pure representation of the Church, so therefore THIS way of being church is forever relevant in this culture (therefore don’t mess with the bulletin or our organizational structure).
It’s amazing how enduring these assumptions are when it comes to being church. Despite the evidence, churches are adept at hanging on to these perspectives. Sure, there are SOME people in every community who would resonate with churches the way they are, perhaps even enough to sustain churches for a while longer. Some, perhaps.
At the very same time, it appears that people in North America are voting on church participation with their feet; or perhaps more accurately, with their inertia (simply not moving toward churches). The Christian Movement in North America is numerically declining (for the last 40 years). There are individual churches who are the exception, large enough to sustain culturally familiar programs perhaps. Yet overall, if the traditional paradigm church was going to experience great renewed interest, it likely would have occurred by now, don’t you think? Improving the quality or improving the mood and morale may help, but most people in one’s community who would respond to this approach to being church already voted with their feet. If large numbers were on the verge of participation, just about to burst through the doors… they likely would be there by now.
Now, I don’t relish ending an article in such a sobering way. On the other hand, we are way beyond the place where we can sugar coat reality, promoting a false narrative which says North America is going to rewind time to when it appreciates the popular twentieth century-formed church paradigm again. The cultural influences which formed most churches-as-we-know-them are no longer relevant with those at age 60 or under. The gospel of Jesus Christ is ever relevant. But like the Apostle Paul, it’s time to look around in our culture for emerging expressions of church, reshaping into more robust, engaging, missional expressions of church.
Join me for articles two and three to further unpack the post above and continue this conversation.