This weekend I had the opportunity to listen to Michael Frost. He’s the co-author of “The Shaping of Things to Come”, along with Alan Hirsch. This was my first time to hear him speak, and overall I was impressed.
One thing I want to quickly mention today is how Michael views the effectiveness of church today. And this is not limited to, or directed towards American churches. This would apply in Western Europe and in Australia (his home country) as well. He pointed out that in Australia about 10% of the population would say they are Christian and actively engaged in church. While 10% may be a little high, it’s probably closer to 5-8%, we’ll go with what he said. The church, according to Frost, is really good at reaching those in the church and those that are 1 to 2 cultural steps away from church. Those that are 1 cultural step away from church are those that are christians but they are not active in any church. If a church is going to reach someone it’s most likely this group. And in Australia this group would make up about 5% of the population. Those that are 2 cultural steps away from church would be non-christians but live with a “christian” worldview. In other words, they live like christians live, but have no faith in Christ. The church is also pretty good at reaching this group.
So, those in the church and those that make up these 2 groups make up about 20% of the population. And the majority of churches today are reaching this 20%. By and large, if a church is growing it’s because it’s pulling from this 20%.
But what about the other 80%? If culture is to be transformed this 80% must be reached. And this 80% won’t be reached “in” church. The church is going to have to go to them. They won’t be coming to us.
The question becomes: is the church fluid enough to come up with incarnational ways to reach this 80%? And if we can come up with ways, truly revolutionary ways, are we willing to implement them?
Just something to think about.
-shorty
April 26th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Well, let’s clarify the other 80%. Are you talking about those that don’t live in the communities of the American Church, or those that don’t fall into the other two categories that make up the 20% you were referring to earlier in your post?
In the American seminary, for example, you can probably read any missiology student’s dissertation and find a great, tested idea, for reaching those in the 80% category. Churches also have what they would refer to as ‘fluid’ ways to reach the 80%. We’ve come a long way from door knocking and revivals, so what’s the problem? Why aren’t we reaching them. More and more large churches are looking into and implementing true missions strategies, along with many credible start-ups.
Why isn’t it working? We preach for people to go into the coffee shop, to have their neighbors over to their house or home group, and sunday school is going by the wayside for many growing churches, opening more opportunities for church to be brought into the community. What’s the problem; why aren’t we seeing a difference?
My opinion is the answer lies in our conditioning. We have been conditioned for so long to invite those into our lives (our church, our home, to parties, etc.) that we have forgotten the basic model of the Word. Jesus went out, the disciples were sent out, those that were effective were on task or moving toward something in a sense (Saul’s conversion, missionary journeys, etc.) The idea there is an outward movement, away from one’s natural surroundings, into a perhaps uncomfortable setting with the purpose of learning. With our history as a church, we have been conditioned in an opposite manner. We have been trained that missions are more like expeditions, where we are to go conquer a task outside of the walls of the church only to come back to our friendly surroundings. There is a comfort in knowing we will return.
This is not necessarily a bad thing, and I am not going to hammer the American Church for this type of conditioning. These are tools are used for learning, like in Luke 10 (1-24). The problem is, the balance beam was a bit shifted to one side. While there were/ are these types of mission expeditions, there is not a follow up (we are starting to see follow up in many ways now, i.e. adopting a country, etc.). We learned to count salvations as a measure of success. The emphasis then shifts from being the hands and feet of Christ to putting a few notches on the belt of salvation.
I don’t want to rant on, I just want to add to this discussion. How do we reach these 80%? We have to change our conditioning. Is it possible with the American Church? I believe that in many areas it is. We have to teach (and learn) that obedience is the reward, not our role in the salavation of the lost. We have long since taught the opposite. The prize is the reward. Are we capable of understanding this? Thoughts?
April 26th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Just to clarify, the 80% is in reference to the general population. So, in our example here that Frost gave, the church is doing a good job at reaching 20% of the general population (which constitutes those in the church and those that are 1 to 2 cultural steps away from the church).
We’re not so good at reaching the general lost population which makes up 80% of the population, all in varying degrees of lostness (i.e. cultural steps away from the church).
And also, he was speaking about Australia. The percentages may very in America, and vary again in your specific community.
-shorty
May 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I am not commenting on this blog but on what you wrote on Burleson’s. First, I challenge you to show me how I made anything in my post on missionary attrition say what I “wanted it to say.” And as far as it not being current, it was from the executive report given at the last IMB meeting. It doesn’t get any more current than that. If you are interested in truth, you will 1) answer the first and 2) retract the second.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am
First of all, don’t use this blog, and specifically this post, to comment on a conversation that’s taking place somewhere else. You have access to my email so you could have just emailed me your comment and I would have gladly responded. Or better yet, make your comment on the site where the post originated.
Secondly, I’ll repeat what I said on Wade’s blog. Your post does not mention any attrition rates from 2008. If I’ve misread your post please point out where you specifically mention rates from 2008. Since you don’t mention attrition rates from 2008 then you do not in fact have current information. In fact, a day after my comment we all receive word that a regional leader has resigned due specifically to IMB BOT issues. Is his resignation counted in your stats? If not, then your post does not reflect what is currently happening. I personally know of 3 other units (in Western Europe) that have resigned in the last month. Are these 3 units counted in your stats on your post? If not, then you do not have the current attrition rates.
And lastly, quoting you from your own post you say “The other glaring fact is that only one missionary listed SBC issues as his/her reason for leaving. Put another way, eight times as many IMB missionaries left the field for moral reasons as for SBC concerns. That hardly supports the accusation that whole teams are resigning and returning home.” You’ll notice that at no point have I agreed with the individual that stated that whole teams are resigning and returning to the States. I am saying that those that go through debriefing (whether by resignation, retirement, term completion, or termination) may not be giving every reason for leaving the field. I’m not saying they are being dishonest, but I am saying that for some of us it’s better to leave well enough alone. You say “The top reason missionaries left the field was to accept a stateside job.” And then you go on to mention your disdain for those organizations in the states that actively recruit those of us on the field. Do you know that for sure? Do you know for sure that all 30% of those that left the field to take a job in the States were actively recruited? Or could it be that some of the 30% actively sought out a job in the States because of their current “work” environment. You see, this will be counted differently, as you pointed out, but it’s not the whole truth.
My point is this. You show the numbers to prove your thesis that only 1 unit has left due to SBC issues. I’m saying that a much deeper look needs to be taken at some of the units in other categories to find out some of the root causes for leaving the field. In essence, you made the numbers say what you wanted them to say. I’m saying it’s not as simple as that.
And again, if you want to comment further about this please email me: ray.b.short@gmail.com
Any other comments on this post not relating to this post will be deleted.
-shorty