Math puts me in a mood

Basically, I know just enough math to know why this is funny.

Let’s not confuse “numbers” with “growth.” 

We all know I have no love for numbers, but when it comes to statistics I not only lack warm, fuzzy feelings, I lack the patience of a 2-month-old. Statistics – just like labels – are neat, tidy, convenient bundles of near-meaninglessness. Don’t believe me? How else is it possible that the tiny church I once attended claimed to have attendance of over a thousand? Really, it was much more likely that 30 people attended 40 times . . . and even then I think one person probably just hopped back and forth over the threshold a bunch, in order to get the numbers up. 

All this is to say that, in recent articles about the “dying church,” I remain largely unconvinced and unconcerned. Are numbers dwindling at both liberal and conservative churches across the country? Well, yeah, probably. There are, most likely, fewer people sitting in pews inside church buildings in the Unites States on Sunday mornings than there were 20, 30, or 40 years ago. But notice all the qualifications I had to put on that? Where do I even start to unpack that? 

First of all, Christians worldwide make up about the same percentage of the population today as they did a century ago. So if church numbers are shrinking in the US, we have to look elsewhere to see growth; in fact, there’s been explosive church growth in what’s often referred to as the “Global South” (South America, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa). This isn’t a bad thing! This is amazing! What I think is particularly cool about it (but which I think also threatens “established” Western churches) is that Christianity in those contexts looks different from how it looks in the US. Maybe church is an a tiny apartment, maybe indigenous music is used instead of hymns, maybe there is no paid staff . . . all of the things we’ve gotten used to thinking church has to have, those churches are going to be – and should be – different. 

Turning back to the US, though, I think a lot of Christians (perhaps particularly those from my generation) are slipping through the cracks of the statistics because they aren’t in a church building on a regular basis. Now, I should say that I absolutely believe that the biblical model is to come together regularly as brothers and sisters; however, I think I a lot of young adults are perfectly OK with doing that at someone’s apartment on Monday nights with a group of their friends. Who’s counting those people? Is that not church? Why not? I’ve thought long and hard about this for personal reasons: When I returned from China in 2008, I struggled with moving from my close-knit, loving and accountable home fellowship back to the American consumer church model. If I’d found a home church back then to join, I would have in a heartbeat. Where’s the problem in that? What defines a church?

Finally, and what gets me the most, is the idea that numbers alone reflect growth. Gosh, even typing that sentence I get the heebie-jeebies. Listen, I don't think having more people in church is a bad thing. It's true that Acts mentions the growth of the early church in numerical terms ("And the Lord added to their number daily those that were being saved.") and the Gospels talk about the thousands that followed Jesus, but I also don't think Scripture states or implies that numbers = life. How are we to be known? By our fruit (Gal. 5:22-23; Matt. 7:20), by our love (John 13:35), by our sacrifice (1 John 2:6) . . . by our large congregations? By our multiple church "campuses"? By made-up statistics? :) I don't think these are things we're called to concern ourselves with.

How do you feel about numbers? Am I missing the point (it happens; feel free to call me on it)? Can we say the church is "dying" because numbers are down? 

Add your thoughts in the comments or on Facebook. Have a great Thursday!