A little over a year ago I photocopied the back page of Christianity Today, in which Philip Yancey wrote a short article entitled, "Not What It Seems." It contained a few of his reflections on contemporary evangelicalism after he had spent some time in England. His most interesting reflection, I thought, was this:

Christians in Great Britain are more serious about their faith than their counterparts in the U.S. In a nation where only six percent of the population attends church, there is no overlay of cultural Christianity and no social advantage to church affiliation. As I have noticed in other countries, when Christians constitute a tiny minority, they are more likely to work together, too. With their impressive infrastructure, American churches tend to do things on their own or work within a denomination. One more difference: British audiences still hunger for content, whereas in America content goes over best when enwrapped in entertainment.

In general, where the Church has had a significant presence such as to, in a sense, overtake or dominate the culture, its character has been transformed. Compare the early Church with the Church of the medieval era, or the house Church movement in China with the state churches of Europe. Within the context of the medieval Church or the modern state Church, something essential to the nature of the Church been lost or disfigured. Often this is the gospel itself.

Within the American context, statistics are not helpful for accurately representing faith commitments, for even though statistics show a large number of Americans to have faith in God or to be called Christians, those numbers are misleading. They are self-affixed labels and descriptors. If one were to attempt to determine the number of believers firmly committed to the gospel, the number would be considerably lower. Of course, to take a statistic like this would be difficult, because only the Lord knows the heart (cf. Ps. 139). But, then again, it is also true that they are known by their fruits (Matt. 7:20).

A friend has suggested to me that we have things far too good here and we need more of a challenge for the Church to grow. The study of the history of the Church demonstrates that it is often under duress that the Church grows the most--think only of the explosive growth of the early Church under persecution in the first few centuries. Maybe that is what we need again. The thought of suffering under persecution for the faith is not something we long for, I am sure. But it is a reality we need to consider, I think. Is our faith worth suffering and dying for? Think about James 1:2-18.

Interestingly, and in seeming agreement with Yancey, Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Penn State University, makes the case that "European Christianity is [not] nearing extinction. Rather, among the ruins of faith, European Christianity is adapting to a world in which its convinced adherents represent a small but vigorous minority." Says Jenkins:

In fact, the rapid decline in the continent’s church attendance over the past 40 years may have done Europe a favor. It has freed churches of trying to operate as national entities that attempt to serve all members of society. Today, no church stands a realistic chance of incorporating everyone. Smaller, more focused bodies, however, can be more passionate, enthusiastic, and rigorously committed to personal holiness. To use a scientific analogy, when a star collapses, it becomes a white dwarf—smaller in size than it once was, but burning much more intensely. Across Europe, white-dwarf faith communities are growing within the remnants of the old mass church.

In this article, which originally appeared in Foreign Policy, Jenkins makes note of the various smaller "grassroots" movements within both Catholicism and Protestantism that are flourishing, no longer encased in the mold of a state Church. While numbers are small, those who are a part of these new communities are committed to the gospel and to the faith, not to an organization. What we are seeing is not the large numbers of nominal Christians as was the case in the past, but an increase in the strength and vitality of the commitment with those who are Christians, even if their numbers are far fewer. Jenkins concludes,

The result has been a rediscovery of the continent’s Christian roots, even among those who have long disregarded it, and a renewed sense of European cultural Christianity. Jürgen Habermas, a veteran leftist German philosopher stunned his admirers not long ago by proclaiming, 'Christianity, and nothing else, is the ultimate foundation of liberty, conscience, human rights, and democracy, the benchmarks of Western civilization. To this day, we have no other options [than Christianity]. We continue to nourish ourselves from this source. Everything else is postmodern chatter.' Europe may be confronting the dilemmas of a truly multi-faith society, but...Christianity [is] poised for a comeback.

Take it as you will, but if Jenkins is right, then there is hope for the West. Also, though, if he is right, and (North) American culture follows the path of European culture--Canada being a lot further down that path than the United States--we've got a long road of decline still before we see this kind of thing happening. However, if we recognize the pattern, there is no reason that we cannot start to buck the trend right now and set ourselves on a new trajectory.

As I see it, this comes back again to a theme that seems to have been popular on this blog recently. If we have firm and solid roots at the foundation, then the health of the Church as a whole is much more certain. Again, then, I think we must turn our focus to the local church. Both Yancey and Jenkins seem to make the observation that the strength of the Church, especially now in Europe, lies at this point. If they are right, then we need to work on nurturing the faith and the gospel in our local communities. This is where it all begins.