The Australian church is not in good shape. Over the last century regular church attendance has declined from around 50% of the population to around 15% today and our younger generations are dropping out an alarming rate. The large decline suggests the issue is not lifestage (i.e. people leave as young adults and return to church when they have families) but generational (i.e. succeeding generations are less religious across all stages of life).
Why is this happening? There are factors that are external to the church and factors that are internal. It seems to me that at least four external factors are in play. First, since the Enlightenment it has been common to argue that religions are systems of meaning but not systems of truth. For a long time this was predominantly an argument of the Academy, but with the rise of cheap international travel and expansion of Australia’s migration to include people of non-Christian faiths, ordinary Australians are exposed to a multiplicity of religions, each with their claim to be the truth. In this context the truth claims of any religion appear problematic.
Second, the rising affluence of our society and the capacity of science and technology to resolve many of our challenges, have eroded people’s sense of need for God. Faith simply doesn’t seem necessary to a good life.
Third, we live in a society that is increasingly impatient with institutions. Every movement must eventually become institutionalised if it is to survive, which means rules and constitutions and budgets and rosters. Everybody likes the services institutions provide, but fewer and fewer people seem to be willing to deal with the mundane realities of maintaining those institutions.
Finally there is the power of the group. As fewer and fewer people participate in religious institutions and our public institutions became thoroughly secular the sense that religious faith and religious practice are a normal part of life has died away.
But it is not external factors alone that are responsible for people leaving the church. More people are leaving our faith than are embracing it, and while the external factors I’ve described provide a context within which we can make sense of this, it is usually personal encounter and personal experiences that are the catalyst for people making a decisive break with faith. When I speak to people and read stories of those who have left the church a number of themes commonly appear.
First, many find the morality of the church inadequate. The two great ethical developments of Western society have been movements for freedom and equality and the rise of environmentalism, yet many churches are oblivious to both. Over the past few hundred years we have shifted from a society that privileged white heterosexual males and repressed all others to one that has championed the freedoms and rights of women, slaves, people of different cultures, and people of different sexualities. Yet the church, which was once a champion of freedoms, has become the largest social institution in the West that stands in the way of equality for women and freedom for people of alternate sexualities. Similarly, many are concerned for the environment and increasingly extend their ethics into areas such as vegetarianism and avoidance of animal cruelty, yet find their churches silent on these issues. It would appear that increasing numbers, particularly those of the younger generations, simply don’t want to belong to such an institution.
Second, many find the institutional demands of church can overwhelm their relational aspirations. My father held a senior role in commercial law with a major Australian bank, yet he was home at a reasonable hour every night, his weekends were mostly free, and he was not expected to complete a Masters degree or other postgrad study. Most people entering professions today work longer hours, often work weekends, and are expected to engage in ongoing education. Similarly, when my father was a younger man not many shops were open on Sundays and organised sporting events rarely occurred on Sundays. Today we work longer hours than ever, and Sundays are filled with activities, yet our churches still operate their ministries in the fashion they did during my father’s generation. We expect people to devote huge amounts of time to running ministries, which they often do, but then find themselves stretched and missing out on experiences of community they crave. It doesn’t take much for them to give up.
Third, a number of people have mentioned to me their frustration with a system in which a trained clergy person stands up and delivers a weekly monologue telling them how to live. We are the most highly educated generation in history, yet at the centre of our weekly gatherings is a form of communication that treats people as though they know nothing and need to be told what to.
Fourth, some simply find the church and the faith it proclaims irrelevant to the challenges they face in life. Church gatherings don’t address the questions they’re asking, and when answers are given they are often a simplistic regurgitating of church dogma. Those who long for the opportunity to engage thoughtfully with their faith all too often find there is little room to do this.
Fifth, just as some people find the church and its leaders are there for them in beautifully graceful ways during times of crisis, others find they are not. They feel let down, hurt, and leave.
Sixth, our understanding of the gospel has not progressed past the 16th century. Jesus described the gospel in terms of the in-breaking reign of God which creates a new community of generosity, grace, and love. Read the preaching of the apostles in the book of Acts and they highlight the resurrection of Jesus as the signal that God is at work in the world. Yet enter an evangelical church and the gospel is almost exclusively described in terms of Christ dying to pay the penalty for our sin. The metaphor is legal rather than relational; God is depicted as an offended monarch torn between the demands of love and the demands of justice; humankind is depicted as essentially corrupt; and godliness is depicted in terms of blind obedience to the commands of God. This may have spoken to people in the mediaeval and Reformation eras, but it lacks potency in ours.
While it may all sound rather sombre and bleak, these all seem to me to be resolvable issues. But we cannot continue to do more of the same in the vain hope that things will change. We can however reframe our faith and our church life in ways that will connect with the questions and aspirations of our age. I hope to make some suggestions around this in the coming few weeks, but would welcome your comments and thoughts on what I have argued here. Most of my observations attempt to bring together what I have heard anecdotally with what I observe theologically and in the practice of our churches. It may well be wide of the mark or have glaring holes. What do you think?
Hey Scott I could not agree more with each and every point you make.
Thank you for you boldness.
If leadership (lack thereof) is responsible for where we are now, and I contend they are, what is the way forward to a more relevant and engaged church ?
Especially when we have an environment where students at a college like Morling for instance are being equipped very well to deal with the issues you raise but when back in their local church meet overwhelming resistance from the leadership / hierarchy / powerbrokers who are hellbent on ensuring the status quo wins out.
Do you have a vision for the way forward and what does it look like in its most grassroots practical terms ?
I would start a revolution, dethrone current leadership, and get back to where it all began (Acts) but that might be a bit too radical.
Thanks again, I appreciate your work very much.
Glenn.
Hi Glenn, I have some ideas that I’ll lay out in a series of posts over the coming weeks. It is my experience that alongside the intransigence of some churches there is good will in many others. I suspect we will continue to see fresh expressions of church, reformation of others and that others will die.
This is an excellent exploration of the current situation within the institutional church. I think it is also worth noting how much the internet has impacted society as it has offered everyone easy access to new thoughts, ideas and perspectives. Not only that, but blogs and other social media have created a platform for those who were once “voiceless”.
One result of this new technology has been the exposure of much negligence and abuse within the institution. People have learned that their painful experiences are not isolated incidents, but often part of a systemic failure of “church leadership” to care for and protect the vulnerable in their midst. (In fact, in some cases the leadership have deliberately preyed on their “flock”.) This has led to a growing recognition of the lack of integrity between words spoken and actions taken by certain ‘church leaders’ – and many have left to seek a more authentic faith journey outside the institution.
Yes, good points. I haven’t thought too much about the impact of social media on faith and church attendance. I suspect there are other links as well
Hi Scott. Well written , but I cannot say I agree with all your comments. I hope you read this lengthy reply and get some ideas that will help you .
Does the church have a future? Yes, but alas, not in Australia for any time soon,…. if ever.
The factors you have outlined as external ones are spot on. The internal factors …. well, you are significantly off the mark on most of them. Critical Morality, institutional demands, boring preachers, uncaring leaders and outdated gospel ? I agree the “topics are correct”. But your explanation of all of them leaves me wondering which Churches you visit. Once again, is it a case of “glass half full or half empty”.
It is clear to me you are a glass half empty guy because for the internal factors, you are looking at the “faults” of people within Churches and not the good works which Faith inChrist produces in the lives of Everyday Australians who call themselves born again. Yes, Churches could have done a lot better, but fair dinkum, you think the secular world has even come close. Hardly. Daylight second, then the good old “wicked world” a distant third as far as all your 6 topics.
So why are people leaving the church? Quite simply, they are self centred individuals who don’t get it that to have faith in Jesus ( leave God out of this, because you can find God in any old shape or form in Any religion if you like), requires “obedience to Him”, and this means you die to self each and every day. Unfortunately most church attenders are going there for a rest from the wicked world. The purpose of church is for Believers inChrist to unite in worship and thanks to their creator, corporately .
Yes you have stated we should be an Acts Church. True, we should be, but you may not get it. read Acts 28: 17-31. It actually answers your question. Nothing has changed since then as far as attitudes go, but Guess what……., the book of Acts was written with no conclusion. It is still being written every day through the believers in Christ. I call myself one of them.
Only one thing matters. To proclaim the forgiveness of sin through one man, Jesus, who provides freedom from everything which the Law could not free us from. (Acts 13:38,39).
So what’s my point? Glad you asked.
Stop demeaning everyone who has fulfilled the truth of Christ in their lives, and stop blaming them for other people not wanting to be a part of the Australian church or its institution. Sure , mistakes are made and humans are poor,at best, at living a perfect life, but , good , bad or ugly, we are all tainted with the same brush. It is called Sin , and unless one does confess it individually to Christ alone, then there is no other way a person can be saved ( freed).
Is there a future for the church. ? Not if it think it has to come up with a Plan B to reach a lost world. There is only Plan A . If the Australian society at large rejects it, do you really think giving them a “sweetened version of the gospel” will work?
Yes, you have painted a sombre and bleak message. That is not what concerns me, but I do not think this is time for a fresh approach to ministry.
You asked the question ? “What do you think?” Well this is it.
Yes I agree… you are wide of the mark and your explanation does have glaring holes.
I hope you read this with my intended tone of “ I’m just replying to your post” . Not judging it , but I am disagreeing with its thoughts about the church at large, and your conclusion, that unless something radical is done, the church in Australia will decline into oblivion.
My suggestion. Do what I did in 2017.
I read the whole book of Acts through in detail.
The verses I have used were the standout ones.
How did it impact me?
I stopped attending one church service every week in the same building and went to many, many different ones. I saw the whole range of people. All at different stages of their Christian walk. I saw many different church pastors. And heard many different messages. Even if the motive of the preacher is not true, the message he spoke , actually impacted me.
I spent much time alone . I stopped and listened to God. I read the Bible as a simple text and not a rule book. Guess what I found. I found I was reading a book about…….ME! All the misery, all the bad example people. All those who Christ encountered who had one particular issue they could not cope with . That was ME .
I heard God speak to me. He asked one thing of me. OBEDIENCE.
He asked me to be His child, his witness , and live for Him.
I went to work. I travelled overseas with my Wife for 7 weeks. I socialised with non Christians. It was good .
I went into streets and talked to complete strangers.
At times, I asked them if they had any spiritual belief, if the conversation came around to things of God.
I got various answers… some interesting, some antagonistic. But some were open to read from the Word of God and I witnessed them being challenged by God speaking to them from His word, and not by my words.
Some asked to receive that freedom from sin. They prayed to receive Jesus as their personal Saviour. They developed a relationship which you mentioned is critical to faith , by accepting God’s free gift of forgiveness of Sin. . ( we are not preaching a free gift of Salvation… that means nothing to a non believer). So I used the 16th century definition . It still works.
I am following these people up personally. I have not directed them to a church. Why destroy their good start? God will direct them , and if they choose to go to,a church, let’s hope it’s one they can cope with.
I love the Church, I still attend, but sadly, most people will not find Jesus in it. They will just find Christian entertainment. Still good value for $20 in the offering, but hardly a great investment in life.
Give me a call 0438 926 416.
I’m sure Together we can produce the suggestions you mentioned you want to publish in the next few weeks.
In the desire to see others come to know Jesus
Respectfully
Dr Stuart Wolf
Hi Stuart,
Thanks for your comment, and I receive it with the goodwill with which it is intended. I am usually critiqued for always seeing the “glass half full”, so your characterisation is interesting. It is not my intention to “demean everyone who has fulfilled the truth of Christ in their lives, and …to blame them for other people not wanting to be a part of the Australian church or its institution”. I have been part of the church all my life, love it, have met the most extraordinary people in it, and have been the beneficiary of their love and generosity. My critique is not of individuals but of the church cultures that we have created and that seem to take on a life of their own. While I agree that many turn away because they find the life of faith too demanding (as per Jesus’s parable of the sower) I don’t think that is sufficient an explanation for what we are seeing.
Regards
Scott
Thanks Scott!
I think you’ve nailed a lot of the right issues.
I’m looking forward to seeing your suggestions.
Spot on
Great thoughts, Scott, as always. I look forward to your follow-up posts.
A couple of further ideas:
a. The post-Enlightenment distrust of institutions has very wide effects. Distrust of government, for example, is leading us to hold our politicians in very low regard, despite the fact that most of them are trying to make life better for people. It’s not clear how this distrust will pan out: if we rely on our institutions to deliver certain outcomes, at some point people need to contribute to them meaningfully or find an alternative source of the outcomes. Where are people now going for the understanding of meaning and value that religion has delivered in past generations? There seems to be no clear alternative other than basic materialism, i.e. having enough resource to pursue whatever vision of meaning and happiness we have happened across. The weaknesses in that solution might give us hints for better ways to engage.
b. The other big post-Enlightenment trend has been to value experience over knowledge. In a Google/Wikipedia world, the idea that the preacher on Sunday will tell us something we can’t find out by other means is pretty crazy. But the idea that our worship service will give an experience of God in a way that cannot be gained elsewhere is not so silly. Sermons need to evolve (e.g. to be less didactic and more experience-sharing) and they need to take their place in the overall worship experience, including the way we relate to others in the church. Small groups are also important, as they enable us to translate faith content into shared faith experience.
We should remain hopeful. The fact that the church grew amazingly well in a pre-Enlightenment world should give us a great foundation for growth in our current post-Enlightenment context.
Thanks again.
Tanks Stu
I agree that these are some of the factors involved but I noticed that the role congregations (as distinct from ‘the church’ as an institution) can play is also relevant. Every congregation has some degree of dysfunction among some of its members. However, what can happen as a congregation shrinks – as many have done over the last 50 years – those who stay often become more fearful and so more determined to preserve what they have. It can make the congregation more and more inward focused and so more difficult for a newcomer to join. Existing members of the congregation can also be hurt, sometimes quite badly, by others trying to preserve the status quo. So people leave. They may go to another church or they might not.
I also think that part of the reason that the church (as an institution) can have contributed to this is the tendency for clergy to spend most of their time speaking with either other clergy or members of their congregations. It is one example of how we tend to live in the echo chamber we are most comfortable in. The internet has made this even easier. We can choose our news source or favourite blog and never need to encounter views other than our own. If we don’t know how people’s beliefs differ from ours or why they do, then how can we hope to engage with them. Makes evangelism a bit hard.
Thanks Amanda
Scott this is a question that has a background. Living in Communist China in the late 70’s early ‘80’s the issue of how we in the Western Church “self identify” became a major stumbling block for me. I was forced to ask questions about personhood that took me on a quick journey to Trinitarian Theology.
As I read your blog I am re-reading a piece by Miroslav Volf. He suggests the way we understand ( therefore encounter God and understand ourselves ) is central to our problem. Like others including Colin Gunton etcetera, he suggests we have reached a place where “ whether God is Triune or not would be of no direct consequence” in what we think is important.
I really appreciate your analysis but I am wondering if you plan to deal with what “Trinitarian Grammar” means for human personhood and all you mention in this very helpful essay.
I am concerned that if that “Trinitarian Grammar” is not foundational then we simply are carrying out a sociological analysis which leads to the moving of furniture upon which we “sit” as Church but not a rebuilding of liberating understanding that challenges the very understanding of who we are as persons, image bearers and all entailed in a Canonical hermeneutic of holy love.
I encounter both inside the church and outside much that resembles “concrete bulwarks” and that includes both “conservatives” and “progressives.
I am hoping that you essaying will include such discussion for as Volf puts it – “the nature of God’s being” beginning “the Christian pilgrimage” means entering into “communion with the Triune God”.
I appreciate your essay and what you plan to do. I wonder how much you plan to dialogue on what it means to live into communion with the Holy loving Creator Covenant God this side of Pentecost.
It seems to me the cultural roots of why we are so “irrelevant” need to be considered in depth.
Just wondering ahead of your essaying.
Thanks.
Hi Mary,
Thanks for the comment. I’m not as well thought through as you are on the trinitarian implications for life and faith. Wondering if you can expand on how you see “trinitarian grammar” interplaying with the decline of religiosity.
A great article, resonating with my passion for authentic Christian living.
Hi Scott I agree with much of what you are saying and have been reading for many years now about this situation. There are wonderful people out there praying, thinking, writing. They come from many different backgrounds and places. It seems that lots of people only read and think in their own view. We must learn to listen to others outside our denominations. I think we (the church at large) have produced abusive leaders because we have had (and thought) the image of an abusive God – one whose sole aim is to crush and torture sinners. We express this in the ways we speak of and treat ‘others’ (those not like ‘us’). Replacing this image of god, more in tune with the stories Jesus tells, will change our attitude to those not like ‘us’, to the world around us and to what ‘the church’ is. For me, it changed everything! so maybe ‘church’ will not survive in its present form but Jesus said “I will build my church……….!” Repenting of the ‘church’ we have created involves changing our mindset and taking more interest in what Jesus is doing. I find Jesus in lots of places where his name is not mentioned. One of my favourite authors, Gerard Kelly (UK), says “where good is, God is!” So maybe we should stop sweating over ‘the church’ (oh dear me, the young people don’t come!) and ‘Feed the Good!’ (that’s a line from a dog food ad). Find good, support it, encourage it, promote it and DO GOOD! Then we will find the yeast of the Kingdom of God alive and well and permeating the world. DO justice, LOVE kindness and walk HUMBLY. That’s enough to keep us busy.
Scott, I also agree with all the points made above. Most people today resent being told what to do and want to be loved. Progressive church should be inclusive, non-judgemental and welcoming of all. I believe that is what Jesus wanted. I know many wonderful religious, who do amazing work, but you only hear of the bad. Maybe people should hear more about the good. But I also know stern, judgmental clergy who are hypocrites. Most people today are empowered, through education and freedom, to decide how they live their lives and are not as dependent on the Church.