I rather like this letter to The Times from the vice-president of the National Secular Society in the UK following recent debate about the continuing decline in anglican church attendance.
Sir, Your correspondents… seem to labour under the impression that, if they get the formula right, the outward surge of people from the churches will be somehow reversed. Many conservatives argue that these deserters would respond better if there were a stronger moral steer (or, more plainly, more authoritarianism) while liberals demand more inclusivity (that is, a rewriting of the Bible). Some think that it is because the services are dry and boring and could be made more interesting with various additions, while others assert that the theatricality of the traditional smells and bells approach is what the punters are really after.
None has considered the most likely explanation for their empty churches: that people don’t believe it any more. And no amount of tinkering round the edges is going to tempt them back. Once the genie of unbelief is out of the bottle, it won’t be forced in again.
He’s not entirely correct as is evident from the large number of people who are leaving churches but retaining a strong and developing faith. Emergent-UK had a very stimulating gathering today with Alan Jamieson, author of A Churchless Faith (see the review on this site). Alan’s work suggests not only that there may be a significant ‘submerged’ church that needs to be taken into consideration but also that networks of invisible believers may eventually provide the matrix for a renewal of corporate Christian life in post-Christian societies.
Nevertheless, I think the vice-president of the National Secular Society has a point: the church has a fundamental credibility problem and we have to face up to that fact. So what can we do to get the genie back in the bottle?
Does it matter that the Genie is out of the bottle?
I think the same question is being asked in this post and Andrew’s post “Towards a theology of public presence”. How do we do ministry in a postmodern/post-christian context? I was reading Mark 2:1-12, and noticed that it gives an excellent example of ministry.
You see, I am one of those people that have left the church. My wife and I don’t attend an organized church, but rather are a part of a small community of believers seeking God together. For the most part, I don’t think the death of the “organized church” as we know it is such a bad thing, but that’s for another discussion.
I don’t think we need to try to figure out how to get the genie back in the bottle. It happens naturally when a genuine expression of God is present. As we look at the life and ministry of Jesus, as in Mark, we see that it is not Jesus going to the crowds of people, but rather the people coming to Jesus. When He is present, people will want to be around.
So the real question is, what is a genuine expression of God and how does one acquire it? I think a genuine expression of God begins with a group of people making space for God and seeking after Him in intimate community. As God begins to immerse the community with His presence, those who have been on the fringes will begin to come. Like the New Testament has shown, people are drawn to the person of Jesus.
This goes along with Andrew’s post about public presence. I don’t think it particularly matters where you are, as long as you are visible and you are allowing Christ to be present.
Kurt
Which genie?
We need to distinguish which genie we are speaking of. Kurt is right in that the genie of unbelief of Jesus will back off and eventually retreat back into it’s bottle, when the reality of Jesus is around. (Although a different genie which manifests strongly against Jesus often takes it’s place…)
The ‘genie’ that is probably not going to go back is the one that promotes a lack of belief in the church - or, at least, that the church is even addressing the right questions, let alone providing substantial answers. It is probably the same one that prompted the single courageous soul who pointed out the emporer had no clothes on.
For those in emerging church this is, of course, not the work of a genie, but of the Spirit of God, who is asking us to take a long, honest look at what the kingdom of God means to us in the 21st century, media dominated world. Therefore, not something to fight against but to embrace and be involved in the vanguard of the movement emerging out of it. Would we agree with that?
The point that strikes me about Andrew’s comment is that, as a representative of the emerging church, he’s apparently not threatened by the truth part of what the Secular Society representative is saying. That has to be refreshing for some of the people involved in or listening to the debate. By and large, that’s where the emerging church can offer so much: while the traditional modal church can only retreat into a shell or tinker round the edges, emerging church can say, Yes, we’re pilgrims on a journey too, making our minds up about what we believe and how that effects us. That makes a much more credible voice, but demands more humility because, from a human point of view (and that’s the one most humans have!) we’re now competing on a level playing field, not masquerading as the voice of God.
The flip side is that as we identify with Jesus, many will likely want to hear more about our journey and our views… Onward…
shalom! John