Community or Attendance

I attended a Wednesday night church service this week.

 My church only does one Wednesday service per week now. Somewhere along the way, a lot of churches put in multiple Sunday morning sessions and even one for Saturday night. Evangelicals who’ve grown up with the midweek option might find it strange to see it go. I can’t say how common it is around the country though.  I stopped going to the Wednesday service on consecutive weeks when I was in high school.  For some this is an awful break from tradition, an inexcusable move that proves America doesn’t care about God anymore.

 But is the lack of services really a trend toward laziness or a strategic move designed to reach the lost on their own turf?

The stated reason, for fewer church times, is to encourage small groups to take the place of large gatherings and invest in each other on a personal level. Small groups are an extension of a larger community within the church. With big churches it’s easy to ignore and be ignored by the people we see in service. The anonymity of big gatherings often leads to isolation, as contradictory as it seems. Small groups promote participation for those without strong support from friends and relatives. It also forces ‘lone wolf’ types to make connections. Lone wolfs would hardly get that type of community from just attending church once per week. They might not even get it attending 3 services weekly. 

If the shift to smaller groups works, than we can expect churches to grow across the country as people without a formal group structure become new regulars.   

The argument against killing the midweek service is that it promotes less Christian teaching overall. Cynical types think pastors just want time off. “Tell the people it’s about ‘community’ and we get to stay home.” First, most changes from religious officials get the conspiracy treatment, why should ‘community’ notions be different? Second, the church should reflect, in some ways, the culture around it. Without it, Christianity can seem foreign, something unreachable and unrelatable. Clothing is one example. It went from ties with slacks to flip flops and baseball caps in less than 20 years. The music too is faster paced, much louder and sounds closer to a concert than a choir led chorus. It’s probably a reflection changing music tastes within the church instead of some outreach effort. But it reflects the culture and isn’t contradictory to any core biblical beliefs.   

A culture that doesn’t attend church (largely) won’t hear the message of the gospel except on a one to one basis. Those interactions can happen anywhere and often do. This is the shift Christians need, from attendance to outreach. It could be that the national Church is trying to revive some of sense of community that is going away in large portions of the country. Civic groups and service clubs (Rotary, Kiwanis) so important 50 years ago are dying. Some of these groups lost over 50% of their members between 1975 and 2000. Americans don’t join like they used to. The ties of local organizations (religious and non) that once existed are barely effective anymore at building group dynamics. Some blame the digital space, internet groups that offer community without the pesky human interaction. Maybe so, but it could also be that we don’t have the same obligation to tradition anymore. Maybe there is a feeling of “What’s the big deal?” or “Why do I need that?” If it leads to searching for groups in different ways, that’s great. But it can also lead to isolation. Isolation is easier to achieve than ever and it’s having negative effects on human interaction across the country.

Community promotes individual growth, isolation retards it.

Churches are figuring this out in a time of slipping attendance across the country. What difference would an additional night of service make in a society that doesn’t bother going on the regular days? Isn’t that person more likely to attend a small gathering with friends than a church? It’s also forcing church officials to imagine a more disparate organization in the future, one central hub with dozens of small affiliates. A lot of megachurches use this model already by broadcasting services to a number of smaller gatherings. Other forms of gathering will develop too as communication of media increases. 

       

The willingness to provide support and build reliable communities reflects a two part goal for the national Church. Without changing with the times we lose alienating a generation that didn’t grow up in America attending services. The goal is the same, preach the gospel, make disciples and support the community through outreach. The shift in attitude is what's important, if you won't come to us, we'll com to you.

 I don’t think the traditional brick and mortar church buildings are going away. But they are seizing on an opportunity to reach those far removed from a tradition of church attendance. For those used to slipping in and out of services without obligations to outreach, this is a welcome change.