Why haven’t some people come back to church?
Lately I’ve been pondering the question of why some people haven’t come back to church. I italicized come back in that last sentence because I think that’s the focal point that needs attention in a variety of ways.
If people aren’t coming back, we should be asking the question – why not?
There’s a few things to consider here. For one thing, church attendance and membership has been in decline for decades – people have been leaving for a long time. Have we been asking why? Have we been open to listening to the answers? Do we really want to hear the answers? Are we willing to do anything about them? Is getting more people in the pew the correct thing? Is that really the goal? What is the goal? What is the purpose of the church? Are we even clear about that?
Secondly, I think when most people talk about people coming back to church, they are referring to people leaving because of the pandemic and not returning in person to their churches, or not returning at all. Again, the question needs to be asked – why not?
More to consider – what has changed for these people? What habits have they created? What trauma have they gone through? How has their lives changed over these last three years?
But we can’t just look at the people, we need to also look at the church as well. Has the church changed? In what way? Are those changes moving closer to the changes of peoples’ lives or further from people’s lives? And who? The existing folks? New folks? People who had walked away from church before? People who suffered some kind of trauma because of the church in the past but held out hope for a future relationship with the church?
More to consider – is in person the only acceptable norm going forward? Why? Is it because that is the way we’ve always done it? What would a healthy hybrid model look like? What about a healthy online model? Is that possible? What does all this mean about how we restructure what the church looks like and functions to meet the mission of the church? To meet people where they are? To proclaim the Gospel? To distribute the sacraments and the means of grace to people?
Lots of questions without any clear answers.
Here’s what I know – assuming that people have to come back to the church, the institution, is quite an assumption. Why should they? That’s the question we in the institution should be struggling with. It’s a humbling question. A question that moves us from a privileged place in which we assume that everyone will shift and move their priorities on behalf of the institution, because they won’t and they shouldn’t. The church isn’t the center of the culture anymore. People don’t feel any obligation to shift their priorities around the institution. The church is just one of many options available to people – with many folks simply foregoing the option all together. Those are realities. And it would be wise for the church to ask a simple question – why? And to listen very carefully. Not listening to counter, or to come up with arguments as to why the answers are false. But listening to understand. To listen with humility. To listen without interruption. To listen with intent to better know itself, its mission and purpose. To listen so that it knows better of what is life giving, and what needs to die, so that resurrection can happen. To listen so that confession and forgiveness can take place, along with repair and reconciliation where appropriate. To listen so that shalom wholeness can be the goal.
About The Author
I grew up with Hebrews 10:25. I struggle with that now. But I firmly believe the church should be meeting in person, that a church does. That’s what a church does.
Now…
I believe circumstances like the pandemic make for an exception. Not a permanent arrangement, but a worthwhile exception. ZOOM meetings or other technological innovations make great substitutes for meeting in person when such times are necessary.
Worship, communal worship, requires us coming together to share space and time in love. It’s too easy, too trendy, too fake to allow the substitution to be the norm. We need to eat together, pray together, hold hands, pray, laugh and weep together.
I wouldn’t marry a lady I practically never spend time with. A child cannot grow in discipline and maturity being nurtured over a phone line or a skype call, but needs to be held, caressed, and breast feeding is better than bottle fed (though obviously circumstances can inhibit some of this in some cases).
So, there is the in person ideal created by God and the church should aspire to it.
That said, there is still something deeply wrong with “church” as we experience it. Something that “in person” attendance, certainly in isolation, does not remedy or explain.
We need to talk more on this, I think.
I wonder though if you are falling into the either/or trap with this. One of my questions was what would a healthy hybrid model look like? A hybrid model incorporates both in-person and technological features – think of it as the best of both worlds. I don’t know the answer to this, but I think it can be done because technology is a part of our experience, not something to be shunned. It can be an assistance. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing thing. I think the beauty of a hybrid model is that it open the possibility for innovation in ways we never envisioned before. Small groups that gather in homes and that can also do some kind of larger zoom gathering at the same time? I don’t know. Just an example. At any rather, one of the things I’m starting to realize is to be more careful with the language of church – the difference between the church as institution and church as the Body of Christ. Several people responded to this post on my Facebook page and offered some great insight on why they didn’t come back. They still gather in person, often with family, encountering God in other ways, meeting spiritual needs, serving, in spite of the church (institution), but without the hassle (not their words, but my description of what they are talking about, along with the toxic culture), of the institution. They are being church without the institution in many ways. Lots to ponder. My questions in follow up are really about wondering what it would look like for the church (institution) to change to support these families rather than the families changing to support the institution. I wonder what that would look like. Again, much to ponder.
I don’t think I fell into any traps. In fact, if you look at my comment again, you will see I make quite a lot of allowance for zoom and so forth. I see special circumstances requiring special arrangements. I can even imagine satellite linkups enhancing group meetings in various ways.
That said, I don’t believe any of that is the ideal, and thus not the target at which to aim. I want to be WITH my wife. I want to be WITH my children. A zoom meeting will suffice sometimes, but it never replaces the real presence of my beloved. And I don’t think that is up to ‘us’ the consumerists we are, but to God who makes us to be and do for his pleasure what he commands.
Great. No one is stopping any of that from happening. And in addition, what I’ll say is that not everyone sees it the same way. Not everyone sees adding virtual or technology as some kind of separation from the physical connection but an enhancement, but in a different way. Which for me means, let people gather in ways that they will gather. This all goes back to the main point of my post – how can the church be a support to people who are living their faith? How can we encourage people? Can can we help them to encounter God? For some people that means in person and only in person. Great. Encourage those people in that way. For others it means some type of hybrid. Great, encourage those people in that way. I just think of Paul in two ways. He wrote about being all things to all people. I wonder what he would do with the Internet with the churches that he launched? Secondly, he used the technology of the day – writing letters. He couldn’t be in person, often because of being in jail. Yet, he wrote letters. And you can tell in those letters that he felt very connected to those churches in spite of the geographical distances. Those letters connected him and the churches. You could argue that they were not ideal, yet, I wonder – so what? You go with what you have because that’s what life is. The last three years were not some kind of off to the side thing – they were life. They forced change to happen. They were messy. Too many people were living as if they were waiting for normal to return instead of living in the here and now. What exactly were we waiting for? And what exactly was normal? I don’t think what was before the pandemic was normal. Now isn’t normal either. The only thing that is normal is constant change. The question is are we going to adapt or not? Living things adapt – that’s a characteristic of a living thing. it’s part of the definition. Is the church the body of Christ? And is it alive? I know, I know. What are the boundaries? What are the limits? Or I would pose – where is Jesus active? How is God showing up in the midst of challenge, pain, and suffering? How is Jesus walking with people? How is Jesus liberating and setting people free from bondage? Those are biblical also.
I don’t think it’s a matter of being a consumer to incorporate technology or virtual things into how church exists. Does it help the mission of the church? Or does it harm the mission of the church? If you want to argue that technology harms the mission of the church, you’re going to have a difficult time making that argument. Martin Luther would disagree with that argument – he used the latest technological advance (the printing press) to spread the Reformation. Paul used letters (arguably the latest technological advance of his day) to spread the Good news). These had an impact on the church. And yes, those might be different in the sense of a technology spreading a message versus how technology impacts a gathering, but I’m wondering if it’s possible to enhance gathering for some people. I’ll give you that for some people I don’t think it is. But I don’t think that is the case for everyone. I think there are some people who can use technology to enhance their connection with people. The biggest thing would be intentionality. And here’s the thing – Why shouldn’t they be allowed to? For some people, being with others in physical space, touching, might actually be triggering, or traumatic. Such an option could actually be a way to be in community as church that did not exist to them before. But again, This works for some, and not for others. So I say, to each his own. Why must we force people to be in an in person community context? Here’s what happens – they won’t do it. They have no reason to. And I don’t blame one bit.
By the way, I’m sorry if I am coming off a bit strong. I’m realizing more and more how much this subject is touching something personal for me, in a complicated way that I don’t want to get into here in a comment section. Please know that I hear where you are coming from as far as the value of in person worship and community. I think there is something beautiful in that as well. And I have also seen and encountered unhealthy situations and cultures around this and I think that is my concern and push back and where I am attempting to search out for ways to avoid that. Thanks for engaging with me in this conversation. You are valued voice.
To my mind, this discussion is becoming cumbersome without acknowledging it’s cumbersomeness. Let me separate out apples form oranges as I am able, but FIRST a word about coming on strong and welcoming my valued voice:
Thanx for valuing and welcoming me. Means a lot, and is not lost on me at all. Same to you.
Secondly, I am okay if we “disagree” somewhere along the way. I shouldn’t expect otherwise. Let us acknowledge that when it comes up. Let us then seek to harmonize too, but not deny the differences where we find them.
But then there are those apples and oranges getting mixed up too. Some of this may not really be disagreement after all.
Your post addressed people coming back to church IN PERSON vs. not coming back at all OR maybe coming back only virtually. If I understand correctly, THAT is the point here. What is “healthy” – a word you and others use for church sometimes – for the church?
I am pressed for time and will have to break off and come back later, I think. But in short, I think the relationship of the church – member-to-member and with God – needs to be in person. It needs to be personal and spiritual, physical and spiritual. This is ideal. Here’s the apple: I am talking about an assembly of believers here, people already mature in faith and those striving for it (which is actually everyone already mature too, after a fashion).
The orange is in being all things to all people who might be attracted to the church or not. Outsiders looking at us and perhaps wanting in. For them, many will be reached through the web, through a blog, a podcast, a zoom meeting, a TV program, a mailer… and on and on it goes. I have no qualm with that.
Well… gotta run for now… more later…
Good points. I think this is helping to narrow in on some things. A theme I hear is the intentionality and relationship. And that there is no one size fits all, of course.
I’m back now. Or, anyway, I am trying to be. (One more level of complexity, btw)
So… IN PERSON…
Look. I am both a critic AND an enthusiast of our local jail. I worked there for a while, and so I have uncommon insight. I happen to believe leadership there really CARES about people, even those incarcerated. Obviously, not every person, and maybe the sheriff, maybe not, but some of the commanders there in charge convinced me they do really care.
That said… they built the jail OUTSIDE of town. There’s no citibus service out that far.
Now. Let me ask you. Who gets jailed more: the rich? or the poor??? Who needs a ride out there to visit?
Oh… and if you get released, you gotta arrange for transportation. This didn’t used to be an issue before they moved the jail away from downtown.
(I wish to GOD, the church of Lubbock would step of for this. There is a HUGE ministry there just begging to be had! No one is doing it! I wish the Christians would do this before the Muslims get hold of the idea, but… seriously, if just ONE of our big churches in Lubbock were to devote JUST ONE of their fleet of church vans to the cause of running just three times a day, a free shuttle service from the downtown central citibus depot to the jail, they can make an impact for Jesus!)
Anyway…
So, the jail.
Our jail was brand new just a decade ago. It was a state-of-the-art complex upon it’s completion and sheriff offices and prison wardens from all over the nation, and several foreign nations as well, came to Lubbock to study our new system. It’s no longer the state-of-the-art BUT… it’s still relatively new, since most communities don’t replace their jail in just ten years or so.
One of the features of our jail which has since changed according to regulations in most localities, but has been grandfathered in for ours, is video conference visits.
This SUCKS! It’s great for the system, but terrible for families. A jailer need not get an escort for an offender to the visitation area, instead, there is a video phone IN THE POD. Meanwhile, the visitor must arrive AT THE JAIL (since visiting over the internet is not allowed) for a twenty minute visit with their loved ones.
OH… And by the way… also… county jail, unlike prison, his heavily populated with people NOT CONVICTED of anything. Oh.. sure…. we presume they did it since they are suspected of crime and have been arrested, and I think more often than not that is right. But that is presumptuous anyway. And for whatever reason, this poor person (usually poor) might sit in that jail a year or more waiting for justice.
Ask any of them if they prefer the video call to in-person visits. And why?
I apply that much to the church as well. IF the church is REALLY THE CHURCH, then we want to be together in person, sharing our lives for real, and not just in some theoretical or technological sense. I believe this is God’s own desire. It is the ideal.
Sometimes, for extemporaneous reasons, circumstance dictates something else, but surely, to the limits of our ability, we would prefer in person.
I think there is truth to this, and yet, I don’t think this is the case for everyone. A jail is different from church in that people don’t have the ability to leave, they are stuck, and have no autonomy to go anywhere else, or have any other relationships. Of course all analogies have a breaking point, so there’s that.
As much as I want to obtain a copy of the book on the myth of H. Alger, I think this one will bump that one on my short list of affordability. So, to answer your question from email, I will get this one, and I encourage you to look at it too.
https://www.amazon.com/Rethinking-Church-Guide-Perplexed-Disillusioned/dp/1946849901?asin=1946849901&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
Looks interesting. The only critique I would offer from the summary paragraph is this sentence is describing his version of where the church should go – “It feels like a family, meets around a table, and focuses on the Lord.” Family isn’t always a positive thing. It can be toxic for some people. And some people try their whole lives to get into organizations that act like families are never accepted in because there are only two ways into a family – marriage and birth. And families have a tendency to protect their own, regardless of how terrible things get, which is not always healthy either. I prefer to think of church as a community, rather than a family. But that’s my experience and preference.
Well, maybe a disagreement IS a disagreement at some point. However, with care and humility about the notion that I cannot see everything everywhere clearly all at once, and with respect for you, and the possibility that from your view point some things are clear which are not from mine, allow me to rebut.
I am terribly sorry for those whose experience of “family” is so wanting they would rather not be in one now. However, I bet anyone THAT far along in the pain is both rare and extreme. I also do not believe that changes the ideal. Nor is it enough to reject scripture.
Now… I have not studied the topic so thoroughly that I have mastered all the nuances, but family is a scriptural way of referring to the church. There’s not something bad about it. It’s not the only way either, but I can’t bring myself to chop off the word just because someone somewhere had a bad experience. In fact, all families are dysfunctional at some level, and many at great detriment.
Nevertheless, family is family, and like they say (or used to say) at Olive Garden, When you’re here, you’re family. And they sold a lot of breadstix with that!
That said… and MOVING ON…
I happen to know you are one with great understanding and insight into EMPIRE (one of the things about you I find personally endearing) and you are a RETHINKING CHURCH type too. I share both of these emphases with you, even if nuanced differently at key points.
I am currently in discussion with my dad about some of this, and he is reading another book currently that is blowing open insights which I will try to link you to as well, and to introduce into our discussion.
Actually, I expect to visit this post again and again since it sparks quite a lot of loaded questions for me currently.
If family works for you, great. I’ll stick with community. I’ve also heard household, which seems less troubling to me – where God is the head of the household.
I look forward to more discussions! They are life giving.