As much as I am loathed to speak like an economist, I do find shades of my idea of "supply-side church economics" reflected in Ryan Burge's article in Desert News. In the later part of his article he writes, "If almost all Americans still believe in the divine, we should not be seeing the number of Nones continue to slowly and steadily grow every passing year. But we are." He points out the importance of listening to the stories of those who leave the church, and I couldn't agree more. I have always felt when listening to people talk about the SBNR group that the problem is churches. When churches fail to minister and fail to perform their duties, people will leave it. People aren't want to stay in toxic environments, and without the presence of sometime of brainwashing or abuse, people will leave in droves, and they have. It is clear from the data presented in his article that the "demand" for spirituality and churches still exists in America and is at a much higher watermark than other more secularized societies like those in Europe. Thus, if "demand" is still high, it must be the "supply" that has failed.
I see two solutions to the problem: doubling down or moving forward. (I should note that for every dichotomy there is a middle ground, but for the sake of brevity and simplicity I will divide this complicated discussion into two broadly construed camps.) By doubling down, I mean a continued and, in many ways, expanded rejection of modern life. While I am deeply sympathetic to this view, it’s an absurdly difficult road to walk, and often not worth it, at least not if you're trying to chase the type of Christianity that Burge describes in the article.
Burge goes onto to describe a small facet of the "moving forward" solution that I am thinking of: a hopeful acceptance that a continually faithful walk with Christ is all that one can do. I was moved by his words, "I thought that if I set myself on fire, people would come to watch me burn. That’s not what happened." I do not mean that church leaders should embrace the current cultural zeitgeist. I am just trying to point out that it is unproductive for church leaders to try to emulate the past and it's unhealthy to try to imitate the culture of the hour. The youth program at my church is emblematic of this problem as it tries desperately to cling to whatever new language is at the forefront of the mind of its youngest members. Aping concepts, phrases, and behaviors from modern culture simply isn't the way to build the lasting community that can heal wounds and provide opportunities. The church is not a replacement for the world, it is an alternative path. The church shouldn't be invested in repaving the road most travelled, it should turn its focus to blazing the path that less and less walk each year.
As much as I am loathed to speak like an economist, I do find shades of my idea of "supply-side church economics" reflected in Ryan Burge's article in Desert News. In the later part of his article he writes, "If almost all Americans still believe in the divine, we should not be seeing the number of Nones continue to slowly and steadily grow every passing year. But we are." He points out the importance of listening to the stories of those who leave the church, and I couldn't agree more. I have always felt when listening to people talk about the SBNR group that the problem is churches. When churches fail to minister and fail to perform their duties, people will leave it. People aren't want to stay in toxic environments, and without the presence of sometime of brainwashing or abuse, people will leave in droves, and they have. It is clear from the data presented in his article that the "demand" for spirituality and churches still exists in America and is at a much higher watermark than other more secularized societies like those in Europe. Thus, if "demand" is still high, it must be the "supply" that has failed.
I see two solutions to the problem: doubling down or moving forward. (I should note that for every dichotomy there is a middle ground, but for the sake of brevity and simplicity I will divide this complicated discussion into two broadly construed camps.) By doubling down, I mean a continued and, in many ways, expanded rejection of modern life. While I am deeply sympathetic to this view, it’s an absurdly difficult road to walk, and often not worth it, at least not if you're trying to chase the type of Christianity that Burge describes in the article.
Burge goes onto to describe a small facet of the "moving forward" solution that I am thinking of: a hopeful acceptance that a continually faithful walk with Christ is all that one can do. I was moved by his words, "I thought that if I set myself on fire, people would come to watch me burn. That’s not what happened." I do not mean that church leaders should embrace the current cultural zeitgeist. I am just trying to point out that it is unproductive for church leaders to try to emulate the past and it's unhealthy to try to imitate the culture of the hour. The youth program at my church is emblematic of this problem as it tries desperately to cling to whatever new language is at the forefront of the mind of its youngest members. Aping concepts, phrases, and behaviors from modern culture simply isn't the way to build the lasting community that can heal wounds and provide opportunities. The church is not a replacement for the world, it is an alternative path. The church shouldn't be invested in repaving the road most travelled, it should turn its focus to blazing the path that less and less walk each year.