Lost Ground
Christians: We’ve got work to do. Scratch that. We’ve got a lot of work to do. And we’re going to have to do it for a long, long time.
Many recent studies confirm what most Christians already know: identifying oneself as a Christian is often a conversational Blue Screen of Death (or Beach Ball, Mac users). For many, “Christian” is to “Virtue” as “Blagojevich” is to “Honesty”.
It would be a mistake to interpret these reactions to the current Christian witness as rejection of Christian beliefs merely. Much of the criticism is focused on misalignment between Christian belief and Christian action. Apparently there are scores of people in the west who dislike hypocrisy (???). The message seems to be, “More Salt, please. Less Sweet-N-Low.”
What studies such as these point to is an increasingly prevalent skepticism toward, suspicion of, and even open hostility to those who call themselves Christians.
I’ve had the opportunity to experience this increasing tension many times firsthand. On one such occasion, I was invited to a party by a close friend who was not a Christian. As a joke, he introduced my wife and I to the group by saying, “Hey everyone, this is Aaron and Kayla. They’re Christians.” Instantly all of us were plunged into a wet-concrete-filled swimming pool of tension. A few people introduced themselves to us. Most did not. Later, someone scolded my friend for ousting us so rudely. My friend had good intentions — he was trying to be funny and spark some conversation. But he might as well have said we were there to recruit for Am-way on behalf of the Aryan Nation.
It’s Not Going Away
Strikingly, studies such as these also seem to indicate that prevalence of hostility increases in reverse proportion to age (that is, younger individuals are much more likely to distrust Christianity and Christians than older individuals). As such, the answer isn’t to sit tight and wait until the controversy blows over. This isn’t going just to go away. It’s going to get bigger.
Solutions in Strategic Longevity
What should this mean for us as we think about what it means to be salty in the world? For starters, it means that we’re going to have to be in it for the long haul. Consistency and longevity will be key. We will have to build a sustained witness over longer and longer periods of time. I suspect my friends who aren’t Christians will agree with me on this point.
“Is Christianity true? Fine. Prove it. I’d love to see what it would look like for you to stick to what you believe and keep trying to bless people in genuine ways even when things get rough and no one likes you.”
Church planters especially will be forced to create strategies that look not only 10 years into the future, but 20, 50, 100, and 150 years into the future. Crucially, they will have to sacrifice short-term gains for long-term gains. This may include breaking with conventional short-term focused church-planting strategies, increased alliance-forming with like-minded local churches, and strategically sacrificing the pretty nice-to-haves for the robust must-haves. Much money is spent on braces. Why not try investing in back-braces instead?
Next: Strategic Longevity Continued
Fine, but what would a strategy for being the church over 150 years in city look like? Stay tuned.
I think the heightening tension Christians feel will naturally reinforce their identity and sense of purpose. Any kind of sect has always become more defined through persecution, because it creates a divide between “us and them“, which can be used to fuel a social movement against the other.
Thanks for the comment PP. Relevant observation to add to the conversation.
I agree that identity and purpose will (I hope) be reinforced through these developments. I pray that this doesn’t lead Christians to an increased “us vs. them” perspective. I agree with you that this is a possibility, but I would hope that Christians would instead choose to embrace their identity and purpose as defined by Christian doctrine and the Bible.
The Christian doctrine of evil, for instance, unites humanity into a single “us.” It’s admittedly an unpleasant “us” (evil is intrinsic to all of humanity, and not just those who disagree with or are unlike me), but nonetheless one that should promote humility, not division.
The Christian doctrine of the church also battles with combative tendencies in areas of purpose in that the purpose of Christian life is directed toward blessing others and pointing to the Ultimate Beauty (God) with one’s life. The posture is invitational, rather than contentious.
What do you think? Shouldn’t this turn the natural tendencies of opposing worldviews toward antagonism on their head?
so i’m on the “wet-concrete filled swimming pool” side of things in that i call myself a Christian. and while i agree with the assessment of the current view that is widely held towards believers, i’m not quite connecting the need for 10, 20…150 year plans vs. ??. what is the current length of church planters’ plans?
i read through the “Christianity’s Image Problem” article and would have to say that along with this article, it seems less that doctrine (belief) is under attack but more that how those beliefs are lived out by Christians is under attack. what seems to be missing is humility. on both sides.
humility from Christians to live authentic, down-to-earth, “i-too-don’t-have-it-all-together” lives and also humility from non-believers to not mistake screwing up as the fault of the content of the belief but rather the fault of the believer.
i can see how, as aaron stated, the posture should seem invitational but as stated right above that, if evil truly is intrinsic to all of humanity and the message of the Bible is true, then it tells us to turn away from that evil. which alone causes much contention with everyone since we can’t naturally do this.
aside from that… i’m not so sure that many (non-believers or believers) have ever seen even a 1 year plan let alone a 10 year plan. the closest witness i’ve seen is a local church in Seattle which has now been around for somewhere around 10 years and has grown to a movement of around 8,000 people, many who have come to believe and put their hope in Jesus. yet still the animosity and hatred exists. so my questions:
how does a true witness sit in the face of a “PR” (public relations) driven culture? are we (Christians) worrying about the true witness going out or just wanting good “PR”? what is the non-believers perspective on this question?
i would argue that what non-believers are testifying to is more about what they’ve seen on larger-scales (TBN, Haggard, etc.) then their actual experience of a true Christian. but even if that’s partially true, the fact still remains there is a lot of work to do as aaron stated.
Good questions, I’ll respond one at a time.
Many churches, I would argue, are focused on short-term goals in the 10-20 year timeframe (see below).
Perhaps, but I’m not sure we Christians should be demanding anything (humility included) from anyone else. To do so seems *ahem* less than humble.
True, the nature of the Christian message is confrontational. This doesn’t mean the Christian posture can’t be invitational (invitation includes proclamation). For many the Christian message will be offensive. But should it be offensive because of the Christian?
Looking at my own life, I’m not so sure. I’d love to say that ever since I’ve become a Christian my attitudes toward the poor, my treatment of others, etc. have been markedly different than those who hold a different worldview. In reality I’m still asking Jesus and God’s word every day to teach me to be more salty, less saccharine.
Much of the church’s resources are focused on appearances (braces). The desire is for our message to be clear. But the information world is now flat — clarity is becoming a commodity. For instance, most of us won’t buy high-end products at the story until we’ve read user reviews for them on Amazon.com and see that they work as advertised.
The Christian mission demands that the Christian message is clear. What if instead of pouring resources into appearances, we poured them into our cities to bless them? What if we did it not for better PR, but because we believe that God wants to bless others (see for example, Genesis 12:1-3; Jeremiah 29:4-9)? It seems this would have a wonderful side-effect of clarifying our message.
A long term strategist asks, “What will be the same about the church in 10, 20, 50, 100, 150 years?” then builds a strategy that emphasizes those things. Marketing, building styles, music styles, etc., will go out of fashion. Giving to others freely never will.
The church you cite has been around for 10 years. But what if that community had been around for 150 years? What if it was inextricably tied to the city’s history? What if it could point to 150 years of blessing its city?
Here in Chicago, we ask “What if we could point proudly to our aid and mediation during the labor riots in the 19th century, our permanence during white flight, our demand for justice during the police brutality scandal in ‘68, our efforts toward brotherhood and understanding during the tragic racism of the ‘83 mayoral elections, etc. Wouldn’t the continuity of our actions lend credence to our message?”
Aaron, I think your point about longevity speaks to rootedness. Rooted in the history of the church in dome substantial way rather than being a 10 or 20 year “flash in the pan”. For newer churches, one way that can happen is the adopt and redeem model. Adopting a declining church with a long history in a community and then redeeming its current witness through repllanting the church is a way to express rootedness.
You’re absolutely right Kevin. Glad you guys are in town. :)