Do numbers matter?
There is a great game you can play as an Anglican clergyman—I call it 'numbers bingo'. You lot tin can play information technology whenever you are in a coming together with other Anglican clergyman, though information technology might piece of work for other denominations likewise. You lot need to bring together in the conversation, and time how long it takes for someone to mention the numbers attending their church building. Bingo! The time will vary depending on the dominant theological tradition in the gathering—only it is never very long.
Recent reports from the Church of England have suggested that it wants to focus on numbers and growth, and there are a good many voices arguing that this is a serious error, especially at Easter. For Giles Fraser, 'Christianity, when properly understood, is a religion of losers… A church that successfully proclaims the message of the cross–death first, then resurrection–is likely to be empty and not full'. Fraser has no fourth dimension for those churches which announced to be growing.
The worst of them gauge their success in entirely worldly terms, by counting their followers. Their websites show images of happy, uncomplicated people doing good improving stuff in the big community. But if I am right about the meaning of Christ's passion [and Fraser is in no doubt that he is!] so a church is at its best when information technology fails.
In other words, not only is an interest in numbers misguided, information technology represents a complete failure to understand the central message of Christianity—and is a contradiction of it.
This view appears to be quite widespread amid certain commentators. Rachel Held Evans, the Us blogger and author, has finally said skilful bye to the evangelical tradition and joined the Episcopal Church building. Isn't she worried that it is a denomination in apparently terminal reject? Non at all.
Lately I've been wondering if a piffling death and resurrection is exactly what the American church needs. What if all this talk of waning numbers and shrinking influence means our empire-building days are over and it'due south a adept thing? As the religious landscape in the U.S. changes, Christians are going to have to learn to measure out our success by something other than coin and ability.
Amongst some proponents of fresh expressions of church in United kingdom, it tin sound as though their pocket-size size is really a marker of success, since new things e'er commencement every bit small seeds.
All this does have some good theological support. Afterward all, it was because Israel was modest, not large and successful, that God chose the nation (Deut 7.7). And at cardinal moments in Jesus' ministry, the followers are few, not many (John 6.66)—though Fraser makes the same fault every bit many men in suggesting that at the cross Jesus 'had no followers left', which is just true if you ignore the women. But more fundamentally, the inversion of power and success is central to the New Testament, from the Magnificat's scattering of the proud 'in the imagination of their hearts' (Luke 1.51) all the way through to the sentence of purple power in Revelation 18. And all also frequently, the Church has been on the side of empire, particularly in its Christendom form. Perhaps the best expression of this can exist found in the counterfeit story of the coming together of Francis of Assisi and the Pope. 'Expect', says the Pope, 'No longer practise we say with Peter and John "Silver and gold have I none!"'. 'No', replied Francis, 'and neither tin can you say "In the name of Jesus of Nazareth, rise up and walk!"'
Yet failure and smallness is only 1 part of the story. In contrast to John's depiction of Jesus as solitary hero, the synoptic gospels frequently emphasise the size of the crowds that follow him and hang on his every word. And the account in Acts is punctuated past summary statements showing how much the message has spread and how many have come to follow 'The Style.' A contempo critique of Church of England statements dismissed the language of discipleship and growth equally belonging to 'simply one department of the New Testament'. But when that section is the synoptic gospels and Acts, I think we demand to take notice of it! Fifty-fifty today, this fondness for failure is in marked contrast to the vibrant growth of Christian faith seen in many parts of the world.
And the focus on failure doesn't actually make much sense. Fraser comments that, on the cantankerous, 'failure is redeemed'. But redeemed into what exactly? More failure? Held Evans notes that 'the New Attestation church grew when Christians were in the minority' simply that very growth changed the church'south minority status. This highlights a basic misunderstanding of a key proverb of Jesus in which he explains in advance the pregnant of Easter:
Very truly I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. Just if it dies, it produces many seeds (John 12.24)
The 'failure' here is not about lack of growth or fruitfulness; the decease of the grain of wheat is near rejecting self-interest and turning from attempts at self-preservation. Equally we let go of our ain agenda and focus on God'southward agenda in the kingdom (Matt half dozen.33), the outcome will be fruitfulness. And the whole purpose of fruit is the product of more seeds, more plants and further fruitfulness. Dying to cocky, co-ordinate to Jesus' pedagogy, should not lead to empty churches, only to a ingather of thirty-, threescore- or a hundred-fold (Mark 4.8). If we are 'declining', that perhaps that should be a prompt, not to commemoration, simply to asking whether nosotros have yet experienced the death to self that Jesus invites united states of america to.
This says nothing virtually the relative merits of big and small churches. Information technology is well-documented that small churches often see more growth, and large churches can function every bit the back door through which the disillusioned get out more easily. But it does mean that the decline of the national church is cipher to be historic—and is certainly not a sign of Easter spirituality. If anything, information technology shows our desperate need to feel more of the resurrection.
We demand to be constantly alarm to the temptation to misuse power and observe our self-esteem in the trappings of 'success', whatever that looks like. But in the terminate, numbers thing because people thing. Every statistic on church attendance is comprised of bodily people, people for whom Jesus died and people who need to know about the truth of the Easter story and the deviation Jesus can make in their life today. To believe that failure is the goal of the church is to believe that these people don't thing.
(This article was outset published in Christian Today.)
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you have valued this post, would you lot consideraltruistic £1.20 a month to back up the production of this blog?
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Like my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is washed on a freelance footing. If you accept valued this post, you tin can brand a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Skilful comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful argue, can add real value. Seek first to understand, then to exist understood. Make the almost charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; accost the argument rather than tackling the person.
mackeyinglacrievor39.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/do-numbers-matter/
0 Response to "Do numbers matter?"
Enregistrer un commentaire