According to the Barna Group, about 45-50% of U.S. church attenders are self-reported introverts – and about half of those are “ambiverts” (a “best-of-both-worlds” mixture of extrovert and introvert traits).
The following are the top ten most common introvert characteristics:
Prefers solitude: Enjoys time alone to recharge and reflect.
Deep thinker: Processes thoughts internally, often analyzing thoroughly.
Values close relationships: Prefers a few meaningful connections over many casual ones.
Observant: Notices details and subtleties in environments or conversations.
Enjoys independent activities: Thrives in tasks like reading, writing, or solo hobbies.
Dislikes small talk: Prefers deep, meaningful conversations over superficial ones.
Needs quiet environments: Finds loud or crowded settings draining.
Reflective communicator: Takes time to choose words carefully, often pausing before responding.
Self-aware: Understands own emotions, strengths, and limits well.
Avoids conflict: Tends to shy away from confrontation or aggressive debates.
Now, consider how these traits apply to church functions.
Introverts are more likely to enjoy structured services and deep, intellectual engagement – especially in small groups like Sunday school classes. They do NOT engage in altar calls, public testimonies, street preaching, door-to-door visitation, etc.
If you are an “introvert” who is energized by such things, then you are more likely an ambivert. If you are an introvert who overcomes your anxiety to do those things, God bless you.
Introverts thrive in small groups and serve in assistant roles more than leadership ones. They also dislike over-stimulation. A church that constantly requires participation (which is much higher tension than simply allowing a person to choose when/where to participate) is draining and can lead to disengagement – both physically and spiritually.
We really need to understand that when half the church population does not conform to the rigorous participation requests from the pulpit, it is not because they have a rebellious spirit – it is that they just know how draining it can be to do those things.
This is why stewardship of people is important. A good leader understands that there are differences in personalities and passions. They know who to assign to which ministry to maximize their potential. Some people are cut out for extroverted leadership, and others are better at behind the scenes (but equally important) roles.
There is also a difference between enjoying hard preaching (meaning the subject matter, not presentation) and personal confrontation. Introverts, because they often need time to process information, do not do well when they are confronted. They misspeak because their brains literally cannot keep up with the pace of an aggressive conversation. New information needs to be researched and reflected on – and that is OKAY!
What we should not do is to make introverts feel uncomfortable because they are not extroverts – and many never will be. The one-size-fits-all ministry model of many churches requires conformity. The Asch Conformity Experiments (replicated since the 1950s) find that introverts might conform (at least once) – and often just so they will be left alone from criticism, but they are LESS likely to internalize group norms and maintain private dissent.
So what is better? A person who is acting honestly because they truly believe in what they are doing, or someone who conforms just to avoid conflict? Such is the introvert conundrum.
It has been my experience that many churches, like society itself, favor extroverts and expect introverts to conform (notice that this dynamic almost never goes the other way?). I would say that it is okay to utilize each in their unique ways. It would seem that the Lord agrees with me.
1 Corinthians 12:12-17, 20-21 tells us:
For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
It seems to me that many pastors who know this passage, for some reason, do not want to abide or at least appreciate it – and they want conformity to THEIR image. If a pastor is an eye, he wants a church filled with eyes. The eye is not supposed to tell the hand or foot that they aren’t necessary.
To make matters worse, they also ignore that the body of Christ applies to every single Christian – even those in other denominations (*gasp!*). There are people out there with whom I vehemently disagree, but we are still brothers and sisters in Christ. We are still family, even outside of the walls of the “local church.” We are still members of the body, and we are quite diverse – both within the building and without.
The Lord God celebrates that. In the same chapter, Paul writes:
Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked. That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another (v. 22-25).
To put a bow on it, Paul asks a rhetorical question in verses 28-29, “And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?”
The answer is unequivocally, “no.” Again, this type of spiritual diversity is of BENEFIT to a “local church” and the body of Christ as a whole – even the weaker “members.”
One might argue that introverts are those members, in that they do not conform and may not seem participatory, but they are necessary. Stop trying to make a foot into an eye. It benefits no one at all, and a missing foot creates a schism.
Simmons' Opinions 