church as a late twenty-year-old
has been a wilderness season.

imagine walking in a desert
arriving at places that appear
to offer water, nourishment, hope
only to realise they are a mirage.

…

a mirage (n.) occurs when appearance or
atmospheric conditions create something
illusory, without substance or reality.

the most common use of this term
is of course in desert lands,
where a mirage presents itself
as a horizon-oriented illusion.

in the face of a horizon-oriented mirage
there is a curiosity, a compulsion even,
to keep moving towards the something
that is promised,
that is hoped,
that is desired,
on the other side of the present experience.

the mirage of the church
stems from the presentation
as a sanctuary of hope.

many churches are indeed
sanctuaries of hope,
but many others only
present or even create
a mirage of hope.

…

perhaps it is only me who
sees churches in this way.

… after a season of
deconstruction,
followed by a season of
reconstruction.

… after processing
‘church hurt’.

… after a season
away from church.

perhaps i only see
the way i now see,
because i have had
the opportunity
to step back and
observe the church
at a distance.

…

my caveat for this entire post is:
i am not critical of the church.

i love the church.
i love God’s vision for his people.
i love teaching and fellowship.
i love breaking bread and prayer.
i love corporate worship.
i love fellow Jesus-lovers.
i love the hope promised.

what i don’t love is
feeling like an orphan
estranged from church.

unable to see prayers answered
in the form of community.

unable to encounter
God-fearing friendships
and deep truth-seekers.

when trying to find
a new church home.

many have been concerned
in recent years at my lack
of involvement in church.

there is never judgement in this query,
but often a concern, a curiosity even.

(although sometimes it definitely
does feel like judgement… but our
feelings aren’t good gods to follow)

but those who know me well know:

there is something wrong.

this post is just an attempt for me
to put to words some of the struggles.

my lack of church involvement
has not been for lack of trying.

…

after a season away from church,
to return to church is a battlefield.

welcome, all the assaults on motive,
all the assassinations of character.

…

where is my Father’s heart?

where are His people,
opening their arms
to the lost son or daughter?

…

my now-husband and i have
searched on-and-off for a
church home for over two years
since relocating to a new city.

i shared a post previously
on one of my solo attempts
visiting one of these churches.

i thought those early attempts
at finding a church
were what was haunting me.

but the haunting
went much deeper.

…

what was i missing?
why was it so hard
to find a church home
as a late twenty-something?!

those early attempts
were mostly met
with discomfort.

in the service style.
in the structure.
in the demographics.

church is for all
b u t
where was all?!

in some of the churches
we have visited:

the encounters with
Jesus felt forced.

the sermons only
seemed to include
scriptural references
as an afterthought.

the worship team repeated
the same chorus and bridge
like broken records, leaving
us longing to escape the endless
repetition of well-meaning bridges.

…

let’s begin by exploring the
discomfort of demographics.

on the surface, most churches
appear to cater to all demographics.

the heart of the church is to reach
the lost and broken, that every soul
may know the hope found in Jesus.

but not many churches have figured out
how to reach late-twenty somethings.

…

one of the first enquires
when visiting a new church
always seems to be to
provide your faith history.

people are quick to want
to know your testimony
and story, and why you may
have appeared at their church.

but. there is always this unspoken
conversation occurring, where the
church-attender is subtly testing
where you are on your faith journey.

of course, these welcomers are
pure in intent, serving sacrifically,
and just genuinely want to know
what brought you through their doors.

but as a late twenty-something
these conversations always lead
to the church pigeon-holing you
into a certain ministry category.

…

see, churches have learned
to tailor to their audiences.

there are creches,
children’s programs,
youth programs,
young adult programs,
connect groups, etc.

there is a natural progression:

creche to sunday school,
sunday school to youth group,
youth group to young adults.

but once you’re a young adult
when do you stop being
‘young’ and start being ‘adult’ ?

there is no real provision
for an ‘in-between’ season.

most of the churches i have visited
as a late twenty-something
have, with good intention,
tried to put me into a box.

but i don’t fit in the
‘young adult’ box.

and they can’t fit me
in the adult box
of ‘young mothers’.

if i were a mother, i am sure
this late-twenty-something
season would not be so hard.

i confess to having wondered:
am i not entitled to access to
sisterhood unless i have children?

the bridge of the ‘in-between’
age and ministry categories
seems too far, too wide, too long.

if i return to the ‘young adult’ box
i am unable to engage with those
who have the same life experience.

this is not to say those younger
lack maturity (not at all!), but only to
say that there is the juxtaposition
of different life stages and seasons.

a young twenty-something may be
still studying, part-time working.

but as a late twenty-something with an
established career, and different demands
on my time, i have only been met with
misunderstanding and judgement when
allocated to the wrong ‘ministry category’.

(or, God-forbid, when in the past i was put
in the right category, i was with those who
were serving in ministry positions, who did
not believe non-ministry vocations were
honouring to God or to the church family….)

…

now include into the equation the
development of being married.

every time my now-husband and i
have attempted to find a church home
we have been (innocently) judged
as far younger in age than we are.

of course, some would see this as
a good thing, a sign of youthfulness
(the world celebrates slow ageing).

yet in the church context,
when we are mistaken for
early twenty-year olds,
we are placed into a box
that we don’t fit into.

…

one church we attended an older woman
(i won’t attempt to pigeon hole her age)
on the welcoming team immediately tried to
palm of us off to “someone our own age”.

we proceeded to be taken to meet the
youth pastor and his wife, who turned
out to be over five years younger than us.

at this same church, another young couple
were also sent to come to sit with us. after
initial conversation, we discovered they
had only recently finished high school.

none of these would be problems, if there
was not the illusory nature to these exchanges.

these young adults, while happy to welcome us
into the fold through an invitation to sit together,
did not express a desire to get to know us,
or to invite us into any depth or community.

the result? a mirage of hope,
an empty form of fellowship.

the ‘welcome’ felt superficial, because we did not fit with
the ‘coolness factor’ of these younger Christian couples.

which left me wondering:

if church is meant to be a community,
then why can it feel like a clique?

…

fast forward to our first interaction
at another church, where we were told
by the man at the connect table
that all the “young people” sat
up the front on the righthand side.

when we entered the auditorium,
we sat in the middle, and looked
over to the “young adults”, only
to see a group high school students.

the following week after the service,
when we enquired into connect groups,
we discovered that this man had
assumed we were eighteen years old.

when i told him i was actually turning
thirty this year, and that we would
love to be placed in a connect group
with others in our life age and stage,
he was rightly shocked and apologetic.

once again, an assumption had been made
based on our appearance, which lead to us,
like a mirage, moving towards something
promised and desired, only to be left lacking.

…

i share all of these stories
only to articulate why this
season of the late-twenties
has been one of a wilderness
when it comes to the church.

let’s now explore the other discomforts
mentioned: service style and structure.

…

in recent years
i have felt like
a newcomer,
a stranger,
every time i have
entered a church.

how can this be so?
when there should be
a familiarity,
a common thread
between all fellowship.

how come churches have become
so distinct from each another?

catering to different:
preferences for worship,
programs for age groups,
sermon styles for attention.

on the other side of
this earthly existence,
i doubt we will be able
to distinguish gatherings
of believers in this way.

there will be no denominations.
there will be no preferences.
there will be no distinction.

yet here and now,
behind this earthly veil,
we are unable to see clearly.

there are glory-obstructions.
there is confusion and doubt.
there are mirages of hope.

…

it is so easy to see church
as a mirage of hope
when there is a clear
formula to church.

the church formula, as a service,
provides structure and consistency.

it creates those prime atmospheric conditions
in which to encounter the Spirit of God,
in which to enter into corporate worship,
and in which to fellowship with other believers.

but is it really creating space for
spiritual encounters, or is it a mirage?

…

sometimes the formula
feeds into this mirage,
this illusion of an experience.

sometimes there is scope
for unmeditated elements
of the service and structure.

but more often than not,
a church keeps a schedule,
a service structure, to provide
certainty to the congregation.

there is a sense of known;
we thrive in the knowns,
not so much the unknowns.

yet so much of
faith and life
is a mystery
behind the veil.

…

here are elements when
the formula feels forced:

the altar call / salvation prayer.
the call to giving / tithing.
the timing of the worship.

if you include
to that formula:

inspirational (not exegetical) sermons.
concert-like worship (smoke machines).
cherry-picking scripture verses.

then it’s no surprise that some churches
have lost their way by prioritising
a spiritual experience or ‘encounter’
over providing a sanctuary of hope.

most would know the common saying:
church is not the building, but the people.

(the body of Christ)

but equally, we must remember that:
church is not the experience of the people.

…

a spiritual experience without biblical substance
is like building a house without a foundation.

…

a church without the gospel is
like a house without a doorway.

…

some more words on this trajectory from
Anchor Sydney’s North Shore church plant:

“church is not an event to attend,
it’s a family to belong to.”

“church is not primarily a place to go, but a people
who have become family because of Jesus.”

…

in first Corinthians Paul writes that
preaching and faith are in vain if
Christ is not raised (15:14) and he
goes on to say that “if in Christ we
have hope in this life only, we are
of all people most to be pitied” (19)

as Paul notes, the hope of the church is not
only about application to the here and now.

we have an eternal hope, a perspective beyond
our current circumstances and experiences.

so if the church prioritises temporal encounters
that do not lead to eternal relationship and hope,
then these encounters are empty, and in vain.

…

if you’re wondering what i mean by all this talk
of experiential and encounter-based churches:

churches have a theoretical to practical spectrum.

this is why churches may conduct their
services in a completely different styles.

some may invite speaking in tongues.
some may recite creeds and hymns.

on one end of the spectrum you have
theoretical or systematic theology:
where intellectual inquiry, historical context,
doctrine and exegesis is emphasised.

in churches that align to this style you
may not find many spirit-led moments.

on the other end of the spectrum you have
the practical and more experiential theology:
where theory is applied to practice, but you
may find more cherry-picking of scripture.

in churches that align to this style you will
come away with more applications to your life,
but potentially without the theoretical foundation.

…

i hate to generalise or stereotype, but these
represent the two ends of the spectrum.

i’ve been to churches on both ends of the spectrum,
and churches that land somewhere in between.

the purpose of this post is not to claim one end
of the spectrum is superior than the other,
because both reflect different expressions
of faith, fellowship and walking by the Spirit.

the purpose of this post is to explore how the church,
regardless of this spectrum, may present as
either a mirage of hope, or a sanctuary of hope.

both ends, unfortunately, have the potential
to create or contribute to this mirage of hope.

the theoretical, in the the formulaic nature
of liturgy (at the expense of the Spirit), and
the potential for performative spirituality to
be promoted through outward measures of
church attendance and biblical knowledge.

the practical, in the emphasis on experience
(at the expense of Scriptural integrity and history),
the promotion of atmospheric conditions and
spontaneous encounters over sound doctrine,
and the encouragement of taking scripture out
of context, which can lead of misapplication.

…

recently, when wrestling with the sermons
at the church we have been currently attending
we had one of the senior members of the
church come and sit by us after the service.

i mentioned to him that i had been missing
the exegetical nature of sermons that i had
been privy to in the past – and he brought up
this spectrum, but in doing so, seemed to be
suggesting that the theoretical end of the
spectrum that i had been more inclined towards
was perhaps only giving me head-knowledge,
and that “maybe God wanted us” at this new
church, so that we could have the application.

safe to say, we left that conversation upset,
and confused why this church thought it would
be okay to compromise on theology to the
point that their biblical references were wrong.

for context: my husband, preferring the KJV,
always brings his own bible to church, and in
this particular church, has had to frantically
flip through his bible in the service, as the
cherry-picking in rapid succession seems to
take us to ten seperate verses. on two occasions,
this flipping to the actual verse led him to verses
that didn’t match the verse on the screen.

when we brought it to the churches attention,
they remarked that it was odd given three seperate
pastors proof-check the verses before Sunday …

ultimately, despite the theology spectrum:

the church represents the body of Christ,
brothers and sisters in Christ (family).

the church becomes a mirage of hope
when souls are left empty and exhausted,
distracted and defeated, or confused.

the church is a sanctuary of hope
when it points to Christ, to the gospel.

the church is a sanctuary of hope
when it unites the body of Christ,
inviting fellowship between believers.

the church is a sanctuary of hope when
the church offers life, rest, truth for the soul,
because these are found in Christ alone.

but churches are at risk of becoming
a mirage of hope when they provide
a counterfeit of life, rest, and truth.

the counterfeit of life, rest, and truth is
the masquerade of darkness in this world.

the enemy hates to see Christ glorified,
and so he will do anything he can to
squander the church and the gospel.

…

churches are not immune to kingdom warfare;
if anything, they are front and centre in the battle.

the kingdom of light and
the kingdom of darkness
are at war for every soul.

but the hope? is that in the
kingdom of Christ and God
we have the gift of deliverance:

“… for at one time you were darkness, but now you are
light in the Lord. walk as children of light.” (Eph. 5:8)

…

the question is, if you were the enemy, how would
you seek to steal, kill and destroy the church?

would you plant seeds of pride in the shepherds?
would you dilute the truth into milk instead of meat?
would you promote conflict and division in the body?
would you burnout the body with ministries and serving?

…

the church is under attack, which means we need to
be awake, alert and attentive to the enemy’s tactics.

…

what was Jesus’ call?

‘come all you who are
weary and burdened
and i will give you rest’

(matthew 11:28)

yet in some churches
this invitation into stillness
has become an unspoken
call to strive for salvation:

‘come all you who are
consistent church attendees,
who serve on rosters every Sunday,
who respond to every altar call,
who give of tithes every offering,
and you will be my disciple’

…

if performative spirituality
enters the church context
(see my previous post)
it is no longer a sanctuary
for souls seeking Jesus.

the true hope that we have
as the anchor for our soul is
rooted in eternity, with Jesus
reigning forevermore, triumphant
over sin, death and darkness.

…

as i finish this rambling post
that i have been sitting on
for far too long (thank you
for reading this far!), i am still
adamant that the church is
beautiful, and has the potential
to be the sanctuary of hope
that our souls long for.

to finish, here are some quotes
that say far better what i have
been attempting to articulate:

“the perfect church service
would be one we were almost
unaware of. our attention
would have been on God.“

(c. s. lewis)

“i do not think the devil cares
how many churches you build,
if only you have lukewarm
preachers and people in them.” 

(charles spurgeon)