In the last newsletter, I asked readers what they were missing most as Christians. We received a number of responses, which I have summarized below. This is by no means a representative survey for all Christians. As an insight, however, it can highlight some topics that can be referred to in further considerations.
First of all, perhaps this: These are reactions from readers of the newsletter. There are many who are outside of churches or free churches. It’s logical that people long for exchange. That is one of the responses. Many are also in more free-church communities, which repeatedly stand out for their intolerance of new or different ideas. It is logical that some of the feedback yearns for openness towards current life issues. This means that answers are shaped by personal experience and often have a specific background.
Christian community in transition
In my opinion, churches and free churches have had their best days. This is reflected in the fact that many people are turning their backs on traditional churches and are increasingly staying away from free churches. Of course, this is not the case in every community, but the trend is unmistakable. On the other hand, I regularly receive feedback from people who are now outside of churches and free churches, but who have not given up their trust in God. They are often alone with their questions and wishes. Those who leave religious communities do not automatically become unbelievers. People may be saying goodbye to traditional structures, but still have a desire for exchange, community and encouragement.
But how?
Between the past and the future lies upheaval, reorientation. This also characterizes our time. Christians in the West live in societies that first became post-Christian and today can perhaps even be described as post-secular. This is a radically different world than it was 100 years ago. Past lifestyles and beliefs, visible and tangible in institutions, structures and subcultures, no longer seem to be understood everywhere today. A reorientation is needed.
You might feel a little lost between the rampart and the ship, between the past and the future, between Church 1.0 and Church 2.0. We are in the “in-between land” and more clearly “on the move” than ever before. Those who are aware of this may not want a new old community, but rather something like a traveling companionship in which people accompany each other on the journey.
Travel company
Below are some of the topics that were repeatedly mentioned. It is easy to recognize that people are standing in different places. One position is no better than the other if you think of yourself as a travel company. One sits on the left and looks out of the window, the other sits on the right, in front or behind and sees something else. Someone has been riding for a long time and someone else has just got on. There are differences, but not for judgment (Rom 14:1).
In my own case, I realized that my journey took me to different places. I learned different things at different points. I also think I’m still learning. I don’t know everything, but it’s easier for me to keep a direction in mind than it was 20 years ago. I see that as a positive. Maybe this is something I can share with others because it promotes life, faith, relationship?
Here are some of the topics that came up repeatedly in the responses:
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism is a real challenge for many people. Today, this is characterized by things like:
- Black and white thinking
- Love of conflict
- Community pressure against change
- Threatening news instead of good news
- Rigidity replaces identity
- Synchronization of thinking
- Deification of the Bible
- Hostility to science.
Fundamentalism is rejected because it is not viable. In fundamentalism, agreement with selected Christian ideologies is seen as the immovable basis of a “correct faith”. This ideological approach is increasingly being rejected.
Where is there a healthy biblical reference?
Those who no longer see fundamentalism as a solution may want to engage with the Bible after all. Where does that work? Where can you find a healthy biblical reference that is not steeped in evangelical fundamentalism? You first have to realize that they exist. Where do you hear about it and how do you learn? These and similar questions move people who have freed themselves from restrictive subcultures and assumptions, but have not yet found an alternative for a serious examination of the Bible and faith.
Are there no alternatives to biblicism? Yes, they do exist. Pioneering projects have emerged both within the framework of traditional churches and from the evangelical corner, in which the critical examination of the Bible is seen as a positive development. It’s about websites, podcasts and much more. I also try to do this on the Kernbeisser website. How can we rethink “faith”? What can stand the test of time, what can be confidently discarded?
The feedback on these questions revealed different needs:
- Some want to foster better teaching first and foremost
- Many characteristics of fundamentalism remain the same
- However, a freer community is desired
- There is also a desire for better teaching
- Others want a fundamental reorientation in their Christianity
- Fundamentalism is radically rejected
- Previous concepts of faith are rejected (deconstruction)
- An attempt is made to understand the faith in a new way (reconstruction)
For the first group, the main aim is to leave behind a certain understanding of doctrine. For the second group, it is also true that a certain Christian subculture is no longer recognized as worth living in. Anyone who attempts a reconstruction can come to terms with the Bible anew. This often proves to be extremely tricky, because the Bible has often only been viewed through a certain fundamentalist lens for decades. It is difficult to read the Bible “impartially”.
Simple gauge
Simplicity is an important criterion. Some want a “simple teaching”. You want to learn, but you don’t want it to seem too complex. However, different people have different needs. It is important to account for this. It’s excellent feedback because it comes from people who know what they need. I have actually seen people who took part in Bible study without saying a word, but were overwhelmed by the content of the study. That makes no sense.
The reverse is also true. I was always in communities that couldn’t make it easy enough. My intellectual integrity fell by the wayside. For me personally, I would like more content, a clearer biblical reference and a few kernels that I could bite on.
Here are a few thoughts on different requirements:
- What is known appears simple, even if it is contradictory
- Unfamiliar things seem difficult because you’ve never heard them before
- If an unknown but healthy idea is preached for 10 years, should it not become known?
- A lot has to do with people’s flexibility, willingness to learn and habits
- In a community, it takes vision and time to establish versatility
- Simple is important, but not in every case and not for everyone. Differentiation must be granted.
Simple teaching is not a reduction to a minimum. Sometimes it’s just the desire to get digestible food. It’s not so much about the subject matter, but about the didactics. I recognize this because there are also communities that insist almost to an extreme on Bible knowledge and therefore do not do justice to many people. Recovery may then involve the question “less and more comprehensible, please”. Not everyone is a Bible teacher and wants to be bombarded with Bible texts. Nevertheless, many people are keen to learn more.
Fellowship
People are relationship boxes. We need community. Martin Buber once wrote that we become “the I through the Thou”. Encounters and relationships are essential for people, even if there are big differences in the desired intensity. Those who have the courage to question their own assumptions and those of the community are often in a lonely position. The desire for encounters and exchanges is growing.
I also recently conducted a small survey on the YouTube channel, which clearly showed that many people mainly want a community. Now there are two things to distinguish and one thing in common to emphasize. Responses to the request via the newsletter mentioned the desire for a community where people can meet in person. The mini-survey on YouTube was aimed more at an online community. Both variants (offline and online) are requests for encounters. You want to exchange ideas, sometimes even with like-minded people, so that you can explore certain topics in greater depth.
Some would like to see a more open community in the parish where they have always been. They may stimulate a debate from within. Others have left communities or churches and would like to reconnect. Once you have broken away from communities or churches, you can also reconsider your previous understanding of community. For some, this means that they would like to have an intensive exchange, but this does not have to take place every week. A lower frequency would suit some people better.
Genuine faith
Some would like to better recognize how “real” faith is lived. What is missing is sometimes authenticity, other times a certain expression of faith, such as “gratitude”. The “seriousness of faith” can also be a topic that amounts to a kind of demarcation. However, it is not easy to reduce a serious discussion of questions of faith to a simple denominator. I would add that problematic approaches can also become visible in the definition and demarcation of right and wrong. However, if one interprets the desire for clarification in a non-legalistic (statutory) way, one recognizes the desire for a living faith that becomes visible in the community and in personal life.
Living diaconia
An interesting idea was formulated as follows: The community could get involved in a practical way, alleviating concrete life hardships and needs. This could be achieved through relocation assistance, help for the elderly or in other ways. I call this “lived diakonia”. In fact, I knew a community that provides a removal team. When someone from the community moved, a truck with a team from the community would show up at the door on the morning of the move. There is also help for the elderly in some places.
Why do these proposals make sense? Today, they are mostly carried out by professional bodies and transferred to the state. However, diakonia is essential for Christian communities of the first century. It was necessary because there was little or no other help. Widows and orphans were helped. There were even rules for this (1Tim 5).
The diaconia that is practiced is a practical service and love that is lived out without any service in return. Even if our world ticks very differently than it did 2000 years ago, it would be enriching to imagine faith not just in a quiet chamber.
What do you miss most as a Christian?
The answers show different priorities. Not everyone said the same thing. If you summarize the impressions, a fairly uniform picture nevertheless emerges:
There is a desire for more authenticity and less rigid concepts of life and faith. We would like to see a serious, but also multifaceted examination of the Bible and questions of faith. However, it does not seem to be easy to find good reference points for these wishes. If there were opportunities to find a new community with these questions, wishes and concerns, some would join immediately.
You could also say that nothing human is alien to believers. It is not about extraordinary teachings, special insights and the like. Rather, it is about human needs for openness, liveliness, encounters and exchange. Embedded in this are questions about God and the world.