The Popularity Myth
Contemporary: Existing, occurring, living at the same time, or belonging to the same time.
In recent years, many Church leaderships appear determined to project an image they consider more in keeping with todays social mores. The idea appears to stem from the notion that being seen to hold something of importance is the same as being popular, and a culturally appealing image will attract more people to the Church. However, will popularizing “the Church” make it relevant, and can its image ever be culturally inclusive and still remain Christian?
I would agree that “the message of the Gospel” should be conveyed in a manner that people can understand it, without changing its context and meaning. However, I don’t agree that the world’s view of Church, as represented in a building with organized religious activities, will ever be regarded as appealing, or relevant in a populist sense. I don’t believe the Church will ever have the overwhelming favor of any secular culture unless it becomes the the culture it attempts to save people from. This idea is a preoccupation that diverts attention from more important elements concerning the general maturity of those within the Church. The bible illustrates the world’s unfavorable attitude throughout the New Testament period. Jesus said the world would always view his followers unfavorably, and history testifies this has always been the case.
We have to be theologically pragmatic concerning our aspirations because we don’t grow the Church. It concerns me that the motive for wanting to be popular has more to do with satisfying our own personal significance, and achievement. Agonizing over image and growth is not a pursuit that scripture gives us license to entertain. Why do we identify size and image with success? Do we really think that declining church attendance is caused by image? And is our own success defined by the size of our Church? Being successful appeals to the soul, and we like the idea of having the favor of God? But is this a position we should take in the first place? Christians have a role to play in assisting God, but I would argue that the current preoccupation is not where our focus rests.
Creating a popular image centers on the orchestration of well-groomed services, modern music, bands, and sound production, along with slick professional sermons. To be fair all these all seem reasonable undertakings. However, in the process we often pursue a more liberal approach to matters of theology and truth, and of more concern, a legalistic approach in the rules of Church. There may be an increase in motivation based preaching, and perhaps promises of accumulated wealth, through tithing and blessing. Demands are placed on serving, commitment, and submission to those in authority. Church becomes more like going to a concert, where presentation, promises, and noise, are associated with the presence of God.
It is not difficult to see that throughout history the Church has been viewed with contempt and disregard. It’s always been viewed as a bastion of religious dogma and intolerance, and in most areas we can’t avoid the accusation. Nothing will change the underlying spirit that inspires the hatred of all things Christian! Ironically, the accusations of intolerance and dogma has cause the drive for credibility, but this striving to be accepted actually contributes to the loss in credibility.
The young appear to be the main vehicle for creating this populist image, by projecting a clique not dissimilar to the social environment they're used to. For some the young are viewed as the future of the Church, and in one sense this is true, but it should never be viewed as the imperative that dominates the purpose of Church. In most cases an occasional increase in youth attendance is arguably due to the prevailing social proclivities of youth themselves, and has little to do with a populist image. The history of past efforts suggests that most of this is short-lived, and eventually fades away. In most cases the young are indulging a temporary social playground, they happen to call Church. After this social interlude has run its course, they tend to move on. So is the drive for image and popularity somehow missing the mark, and not adequately leading to changed lives? Perhaps the image we have, is simply not different enough? In saying this, Acts 2:46 is an example of the peoples favor with Christians. However, this was not Church, as we understand it today. In addition, it was localized and short-lived, but it does provide enough for the basis of an alternative view.
Sooner or later one has to step back from what we would like to think is happening, and face the cold reality! If we look at the wider Church statistics between 1993 and 2006, there's been no sustained growth at all, and I see nothing since then to suggest a change in that trend. The statistics suggest that for every thousand converts claimed, the same amount leave the church. Whether in fact they were converts in the first place, depends on how we read the statistics. However, the fact remains that either they never received Christ in the first place, or for some reason the Church held no sustained relevance for their lives. The other area of concern is the ever-increasing number of mature Christians leaving the Church. Attempts to create a popular image are clearly not causing these Christians to stay, and we might start by asking why?
Every year Christians prophesy that God is doing a new thing, and we herald the next new anointing; oh the new anointing!! Eventually the moment is forgotten, the enthusiasm fades, and the Church moves on. Is this the totality of our Church experience? Alternatively, are we just repeating the same mistakes repeatedly, and expecting a different result? What are we hoping to achieve by calling ourselves, user-friendly Churches, seeker friendly Churches; youth focused Churches, non-denominational Churches, Churches on the cutting edge, or non-threatening Churches? I shudder at the implications of a non-threatening Church!
