To answer this question, we have to start at the beginning. 2000 years ago Jesus’ followers (people of “the Way”) made up a diverse, dynamic, persecuted, mission-oriented movement. These people of “the Way” were wounded healers, commissioned by God’s Spirit to bring new life wherever they went. Having received the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit, they became Christ’s “witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth” (Acts 1.8). The entire book of Acts tells the story of the early churches quest to established small, localized Spirit-filled communities across the Roman Empire.
But it didn’t take long for the winds of change to sweep over the church. In about 300 years Jesus’ missionary church traveled from the dusty plains of Palestine to the royal quarts of the Roman Emperor, Constantine.
In a surprising twist of fate, almost in the blink of an eye, the church went from a dynamic, persecuted, mission-oriented movement to the state sponsored religion of the Roman Empire. Small, subversive enclaves gave way to state sponsored Cathedrals, elaborate liturgies, dense theologies, and massive, informal gatherings. Is this where it was meant to go? I guess on this side of heaven we’ll never truly know. But I have my doubts.
By the eleventh century the Church essentially controlled Western culture. And by the Middle Ages, the connection of church-and-state forged into an institutional interdependence between the pope and the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. This Church-state partnership changed forever the social behaviors and religious practices of Europe. Many individuals and social structures were influenced and/or directed by the cultural force of Christendom. Members of society were assumed to be Christian via birth, baptism, confirmation, and participation in the Eucharist. And in some circles, the king or queen actually became the head of the church. This was the era of Christendom in Western civilization.
The cultural force of Christendom carried on through the Protestant Reformation and up to the period of the Enlightenment, at which point the winds of change started to blow again; this time, in a very different direction.
For the last 250 years the cultural force of Christendom has been in serious decline. The Church institution has lost much of its influence to shape society and cultural. And now, we live in what some people call a post-Christendom culture.
Yet, interestingly, much of the Western Church still envisions itself and its mission in terms of Christendom. In many respects, our institutions continue to act as though little has changed in 500 years. We still perceive ourselves as central to society and the surrounding culture. And we continue to follow an attractional, extractional model of Church that developed hundred’s of years ago. Assuming that people will flock to our sacred spaces, we still follow a “come-to-us” approach to outreach. And buildings remain central to our notion and experience of church.
Now please understand me, I’m not trying to put forward a simplistic anti-structure, anti-tradition, or anti-building sentiment. That would be far too easy. What I’m saying is that the Christendom model of Church is, in many respects, out of touch with where people are at today. For example, how can the Christendom model ever speak to the following people…
I was at a local coffee shop recently and there was a guy and girl who looked to be about 30, chatting it up right across from me. They were speaking loudly and it appeared they didn’t care if people could hear them. So, I decided to listen along while working on my computer!
As the guy reflected on his weekend he said “I was up with 8 of my buddies until 6:30 am on Saturday night [actually Sunday morning!], pouring drinks and watching the sun come up. It was awesome! But Sunday was pretty much a write off. I woke up at about 4 or 5 pm, and then a bunch of us went to a local pub to watch the team Canada hockey game” (this was during the 2010 Olympics).” He then joyfully commented, “The guys who own the pub are our age, which is really cool. They have pretty good food and they throw us some free beer’s all the time.” The guy’s phone then rings with a ring tone declaring: “Man on the run!”…he answers…“Hi, mom, how’s it going?” I could hardly contain my laughter!
The only “religion” language in their conversation was “I’m not a religious coffee drinker.” And quite apart from religion proper, they seemed to be very fond of the “late Saturday night” partying culture they’re immersed in. At the same time, they voiced their concern for issues related to social justice and they expressed their distain for our culture of gossip. Along with this I sensed in them a deep longing for community and solidarity.
So the question is: “How can the attractional, Christendom model of Church interact with such people? The problem is, it can’t when its main posture is to hope that people will “come to their senses” and “come to Church.” That’s not happening. I know it wasn’t happening for me during the first 18 years of my life; at least not until God met me in my social and work situation through a friend of mine. I didn’t know what the Church was and I didn’t care, at least not until one of God’s people met me in my world. And that gives me hope. But that hope is only realized when we live up to our God-given responsibility to connect with people where they’re at and to develop relationships of trust, in which the gospel can be heard.
If, however, we think most young people or young adults are going to walk off the street and into our Church buildings, we’re deceiving ourselves. We need new ways, new modes, new methods of being church in this post-Christendom culture. Figuring out how to get people to worship on Sunday is not the goal.
God is calling us to meet people in their space, to earn trust, to live holy lives, and to show people the new life that’s found in Jesus Christ. You might say God is calling us “to introduce Christianity into Christendom” (Soren Kierkegaard).
