In my last post (July 30) I listed the five sociological and
historical forces that Ross Douthat identifies in his book, Bad Religion as the primary contributing
factors in the decline of the attractiveness and authority of Christian
orthodoxy in America. Whatever “proximate causes of Christianity’s decline”
(his term) you consider most definitive, the ones he lists certainly
contributed.
What I want to do in this post is identify some of the
factors within evangelicalism that
seems to me to have contributed to the decline. I realize that on this level
there are significant regional and denominational differences that are worthy
of note, though I will not take the time to parse them out here. Sadly, a
number of these factors are still with us.
Spokespeople who represent
a shriveled version of faith.
The so
called “Christian media” has produced a host of pundits and commentators who have
positioned themselves as representatives of the evangelical world. Many have been
more animated by political ideologies than by historic biblical orthodoxy, some
have been distinctly uncivil, many have spoken to issues far outside their
expertise, and a few are little more than buffoons preening in the spotlight. I
have listened to their comments in dismay, at times wondering if I could in
good conscience continue to identify myself as an evangelical.
Though this
does not address religious pundits specifically, Susan Cain in her excellent
book, Quiet: The of Introverts in a World
that Can’t Stop Talking notes: “A well known study out of UC Berkeley by
organizational behavior professor Philip Tetlock found that television
pundits—that is, people who earn their livings by holding forth confidently on
the basis of limited information—make worse predictions about political and
economic trends than they would by random chance. And the very worse
prognosticators tend to be the most famous and the most confident” (p. 52).
We would
have been far better served by silence. We still would be.
Squandering spiritual
resources.
As the
world passed from modernity to postmodernity, it was quickly clear that rather
than a descent into secularism, a renewed interest in spirituality was
blossoming. It’s true this trend was not immediately evident in the books and
articles produced by the knowledge elite, but it couldn’t be missed in coffee
shops and in the themes expressed in popular music and film. At such a point, it
would make sense that attention and creativity would be given to the rich spiritual
resources of evangelical faith, but often no one seemed to care or notice.
Consider
just one example: liturgy. Liturgy rooted in the ancient practices of the
church, thoughtfully rendered for today and creatively shaped by the gospel
itself is a rich spiritual resource to be demonstrated to a watching world. A
self-confident and comfortable church, however, goes through the motions,
perhaps even enthusiastically, failing to realize how beauty must be carefully nourished
if it is to be appreciated.
Even today
it is often obvious that the leader has not carefully prepared for each aspect
of the service. Prayers, readings, and hymns are introduced with tired phrases
that once might have sounded fresh, now repeated every week, “please stand with
me and respond in praise…” as if that’s an intelligent way to introduce the
corporate singing of a hymn full of phrases and concepts not normally spoken in
everyday speech to someone who is unchurched. Insufficient context is provided
to tie each element to the last and to the whole, and speaking louder than
normal is apparently thought to grant authority or authenticity.
Non-liturgical
evangelical traditions still have a liturgy, if we define it as the order in
which the various elements of worship appear during corporate worship. The
problem for such churches is demonstrating that their order is rooted in
anything more ancient or authoritative than the group’s preferences, and then
leading it so that the whole demonstrates an orthodox faith.
Faith separated from
vocation.
The
evangelical church professes to believe the Reformation teaching that all work
brings glory to God, but in practice this has been rarely reflected in the life
of congregations. A proliferation of church and parachurch activities have been
produced, and often the subtle impression has been given that truly spiritual
people are involved in such programs.
The problem
remains. The truth of the matter is that our faithfulness as Christians is
expressed in our vocations. Our work fulfills our calling to build culture and
witness to God’s mission to bring Christ’s kingdom to fulfillment in his
creation. Even if this is believed, it is rarely taught explicitly, and in
practice is smothered by the pressure to volunteer for more church sponsored
events and activities.
Priorities in ministry
set by reaction not biblical and historic faithfulness.
As
Christianity has declined in attractiveness and authority, evangelical leaders
have responded in various ways. Some adopted a consumerist model, and assumed
their attempt was good because huge churches resulted. It was years before data
was available to prove what should have been evident: using what fallen people
like to make church entertaining guts the gospel of its meaning and power. Some
have embraced postmodernism, arguing that historic orthodoxy itself must be
reimagined. Before long in their preaching and writing were espousing positions
that are at best heterodox. Others have reacted against this heterodoxy,
retrenched and emphasized theology, so that their people became well versed in
identifying differences in varying schools of thought about the minutia of
doctrine. For some reason many of these seem to fail to comprehend that
orthodox Christianity also provides us with a worldview by which we can see, discern,
and faithfully find our way through the myriad choices of ordinary life.
All these
reactions, still with us, are understandable, but unfortunate.
Claims to change the
world.
Over the
past century evangelicals have claimed the gospel transforms not just lives,
but families and cultures to eventually change the world. Sadly, these claims
have been misapplied politically so that electing the correct politicians was
promised to usher in a renewed period of traditional family values, economic
freedom, and justice.
These
claims reached a high point with Ronald Reagan’s election, but the reality was
disappointing, if not embarrassing. As conservative Ross Douthat points out in
his book, Bad Religion, Reagan’s worldview
did not align itself with the orthodoxy: “As John Patrick Diggins wrote, ‘Reagan
offered three of the most radical thoughts ever held by an American president:
We have no history at our back; the people know no evil because our God-given
desires are good; and only the state knows how to sin.’ The Gipper took
elements from modernist theology and adapted them to right-of-center politics.
Instead of History’s God working out His purposes through the development of
the modern bureaucratic state, it was democratic capitalism that reflected God’s
ultimate will for humanity. Reagan’s was a utopianism of free men and free
markets, rather than of a benevolent administrative body—but it was a
utopianism nonetheless, unconstrained by traditional conservatism’s sense of
tragedy” (p. 267).
Perhaps a
bit less hubris would be wise. I happen to believe that the gospel is the true
transforming power of all of history, but pinning the hopes of transformation
to particular political, judicial, legislative, or evangelical events is
irresponsible. As each year passes these claims seem more foolish. Once again,
silence would be preferable.
An absence of human
flourishing.
The claim
that the gospel is transformative will be implausible unless those who claim to
live by it exhibit lives of beauty, virtue, love, and grace. Accomplishing this
is impossible, of course, but thankfully the Lord has sent the Spirit. It does
not require anything extraordinary but faithfulness in the ordinary and
routine, the deeply subversive arts of warm hospitality, unhurried conversation,
a simple meal, good listening, and a quiet dependence on God through prayer. Following
the mistaken impressions of the Second Great Awakening, over the course of the
twentieth century evangelicals have depended more on techniques and programs
than on radical discipleship.
Unethical evangelism.
The primary
approaches to evangelism fostered since the end of World War II were modeled
after sales techniques. Some were frankly unethical, such as those involving
“surveys” that were really not surveys, their data never collected and
tabulated, but were merely a set of manipulative questions designed to funnel
the encounter into a particular presentation. All the church really succeeded
in doing was convincing the world that evangelism was a form of marketing and
the gospel was one more commodity. Many involved "bait and switch," giving the impression of professing interest in one thing, only to suddenly change direction to a pre-packaged witness.
Reaction rather than
discernment.
When a
minority is not prepared to meet the challenges of living in a culture that
does not share its deepest convictions and values—and may even be hostile to
them—the tendency is to react. This in turn gives the impression the minority’s
position is weak and indefensible, so that the fearfulness displayed seems
plausible to the majority. If the minority then withdraws into a self-imposed
ghetto, with its own activities, media, music, art, and language, the
majority’s opinion is further supported.
It is
extremely difficult to be a thoughtful minority, especially if you haven’t
noticed the culture’s change switching you from a majority force to a dismissed
minority. It’s hard work to be discerning, instead of merely reacting to
things, but there is no other possible way to be faithful in a pluralistic
world.
Enough for now: I provide this list not as something
exhaustive but as impressionistic, anecdotal, and incomplete. It seems to me
these tendencies within evangelicalism have not served the church well, and
most of them still haunt us. They comprise factors that seems to me have helped
reduce the authenticity and authority of orthodoxy within the evangelical
movement over the course of the last 70 years.
I look forward to your comments, pro and con, or adding to what I've included here.
This entry was posted
at Monday, August 06, 2012
and is filed under
Christian faith,
Church,
Douthat,
Ethics,
Evangelism,
Humanness,
Reactionary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through the
comments feed
.