Over the past year, my thinking about change has shifted from the general, conventional perception of change as chaotic to change actually being the experience of organizational and personal transitions from one era to the next. The New Pantagruel has an interesting essay about the perception by some evangelical leaders that Evangelicalism is in decline.
In some respects, I'd claim the evangelical moniker, having earned by M.Div at Gordon-Conwell in 1981, but for the most part, I've not been apart of that sub-culture of the church in twenty years. So, whether I am or am not really doesn't matter at this point. However, I do think that Evangelicalism is in ferment, and what it will be in the future is not certain at all. And it goes beyond what the self-critiques pointed to by Gregory Johnson.
Johnson's essay focuses on the self-criticism of Evangelical leaders who perceived a shift from a theo-centric theological orientation to an anthropocentric one. Johnson identifies nine criticisms of contemporary Evangelicalism by these critics.
- The
Psychologization of Christianity
- Emotionalism
- The
eclipse of preaching in the evangelical church
- The
eclipse of worship and sacraments
- The
eclipse of the institutional church
- Marketing
techniques and business-like church administration
- Protestant
Distinctives over against Roman Catholicism
- Political
Life
- Anti-Intellectualism
Johnson observes that "these authors paint a narrative of declension, one in which a once faithful evangelical movement has exchanged the serious study of God’s supremacy and a radical commitment to his Word for a pragmatic, human-centered and narcissistic emotionalism."
I think this is an issue worth discussing. Recently, I had an itinerant preacher tell me that he felt the only hope for the church was through expository preaching. At the time, it would have been socially inappropriate to argue the point with him, because I felt that what he was really telling me was that this is the only place that I feel the power of God.
To characterize this transition in Evangelicalism as one of decline is an interpretation of what one observes. My perspective is different than these Evangelcal leaders, and I respect them for their commitment to the Gospel. I've known some of them as my teachers, so I understand the context from which they speak.
When I was a student at Gordon-Conwell from 1978 to 1981, we were a centerpiece in what was then termed the Battle for the Bible, a period of time whose name came from the book of the same name by Harold Lindsell, who at the time was chairman of the board at Gordon-Conwell. While you may think that there was a unified acceptance of Lindsell's viewpoint, you would be wrong. Gordon-Conwell at that time in its history was a very diverse place culturally and denominationally. Well over have of the student body came out of mainstream churches. The vast majority were Presbyterian. The intellectual divide in the school was between the New Testament Studies department and the Systematic Theology department. Simply put the conflict was between a study of the Scripture in its social, historical and cultural context and the study of Scripture from within the philosophic matrix of the Reformed theological tradition. While this may seem as an academic debate, it really was not. Johnson's essay points to the implications of this distinction.
From my perspective, one does not have to abandon a theocentric position to focus on experience. In fact, I think the weakness of Reformed Evangelicalism has been that it has driven a wedge between intellectual rigor and experience. It has focused on the intellectual content of the Gospel to the exclusion of the character and discipline of the Christian faith. That is discussed, but as a topic of intellectual inquiry. It is not mistake that we Presbyterians have historically prided ourselves on having an educated clergy. These Reformed Evangelical leaders are just one extreme on that spectrum. I know that there are plenty of examples of Evangelical thinkers who do not fall prey to this dilemma, so I make this characterization realizing that I'm not speaking of all Evangelicals, just a particular set of leaders.
As an organizational development specialist, my assessment of their critique and this conflict between theocentric and anthropocentric religion is one of power and control. One of the principles that I apply in my analysis of organizations is the question of where is the self-interest in this debate. These Evangelical leaders have built their ministries, their careers and their reputations on a very specific interpretation of the Gospel and of Reformed theology and tradition. Their approach to what it means to be theocentric is an interpretation of the idea of theocentrism. It is more or less congruent with whatever that might mean in actuality. In fact, their perception of conflict between theocentrism and anthropcentrism is an interpretation that may or may not approximate the truth. As a result, there is tremendous investment in theocentrism that is in their self-interest to maintain. I'm not saying that they are cynical in their views. Far from it. However, I do think that when people find their positions threatened that often it is easier to retreat into a bunker mentality and not look at the larger picture.
I think it is significant that in a country - England - where the church has decline in far greater numbers than in the U.S. that two of the most prominent Evangelical leaders in the world - John R.W. Stott and Alister McGrath do not share this position. What do they see that these others do not see?
Is there are larger picture here? I think so. The church in the West is in transition. It is shifting from a Western-centric religious tradition to an emerging global Christianity one. Is it abandoning its intellectual foundations? I don't think so. Is it changing its perception of what the Scripture says? Yes, I believe that is changing. Are we becoming more pragmatic? I don't know about that. I do think that the church, whether it is the Evangelical church or the Presbyterian church, is becoming more circumspect. We are questioning our methods and principles more. I think that is healthy. It drives us back to the Scripture, not for proof texts, but for wisdom and insight.
What I observe is that as a church we are exhausted. The Reformation project begun 500 years ago has run its course. As a result, we are in the midst of the greatest change in the church in a half of a millenium. I think we are the beginning of that transition, and that its full import is not yet known. I suspect that some of this talk of Evangelical declension is another signal of the change that is happening.
What these former teachers of mine are pointing to is change from a hyper-intellectualism of theocentrism that marks their own vision of the church to one that is less academic and more personal. When the church becomes more personal, the opportunity is for people realize a personal calling to mission and service.
When I was a student in seminary, my favorite writers apart from those who wrote biblical theology as oppose to systematic theology, were the English Puritans. They get a bad rap because of Cromwell. But what appealled to me about these writers were a combination of three spiritual qualities. One is a clear intellectually rigourous Reformed understanding of the centrality of God and Jesus Christ. Two was a passion, a love for Christ, that transcended some dry intellectualism. And three, recognition that all this needed to be put into practice in one's life.
The Christian faith is more than an intellectual system of belief. It is something alive and living that cannot be contained within a system of doctrine. Those systems are simply interpretations that are aids to living faithfully. The exhaustion that I see in the church is now being expressed in the desire of people for greater human interaction, less spin and service to others. As a result, it is an exciting time to be in the church. I am very optimistic about the future.
Let me answer his challenges and questions in order.
1. I'm not frustrated. I am concerned about the future of the church. We are in a long protracted period of transition in the church and society. I am also concerned about pastors and what the future will require of them, and whether they will be prepared.
2. Your are concerned that I wandered 'away from the relevant objective criteria ("biblical, theological and ecclesiastical" training) for the pablum of consumer-driven models focusing on "social networking and word-of-mouth marketing". If you understood social networking theory and practice, you would have understood that this is a method that Jesus' Apostles used to spread the Gospel. It is the lack of understanding of contemporary business ideas that puts the church at a disadvantage. Why? Because your parishioners are employing these very same methods to build and strengthen their businesses. Surely, you wouldn't say to their faces in a public forum that they are manipulating their customers? But this what you suggest by your comment. If you truly believe this, then you have placed a barrier between yourself and your parishioners by this prejudicial view.
From my perspective, most of these ideas fall within the category of common grace. These are ideas that are true in a creation sense, though not necessarily in a redemptive one. Though I believe we can gain insight into God's design for humanity by understanding social network theory, it won't at the same time lead you to Jesus. So, these ideas are not a replacement for the Gospel, nor are they necessarily antithetical to it.
3. I think you confuse ideas that are organizational structure ideas with those that are ideas that frame our theological understanding of who God is and who we are in relation to him. Word-of-mouth marketing is simply an organizational methodology. There may be some theological relevance to the social dimension of one person telling another person about what is important to them. But strictly speaking it isn't confessional theology. So too is most of the governance structures of most of the churches that exist world-wide.
The problem is the contention that everything must square with some idea or text in scripture. This is not only impossible, but it is simply legalism. There is not a one-to-one correspondence between our time and the Bible's. To treat it so is to misinterpret the Scriptures in order to save it from itself.
As Reformed Christians, we live in the real world, and we read the Scripture in the context of the real world of its formation. We interpret Scripture by adapting our lives to it. But there is never a literal one-to-one correspondence. To suggest this is to treat the Scripture just as much as a source of pablum and tool for manipulating people. This literal approach to Scripture is not biblical, but born out of the scientism of the Enlightenment that sees truth in a mathematical congruity. The Scripture is a divinely inspired human document that tells the story of our relationship as people to God our creator, and to make it into a periodic table of ethics is to turn it into something that it is not.
4. This leads to the problem of how we use Scripture to measure the work of ministry and the life of the church. You use the John passage to show that we are to abide in Christ. Of course we are, he is our life. But this is a metaphorical description of our relationship to him, not a design for the organization of the church. And it does not denigrate Scripture to say that it is largely silent on how churches are to organize themselves in the 21st century. That silence has serve us well throughout the centuries because it has allowed the church to change and adapt to changing societal circumstances. And this is where I see us today. We are on the cusp of dramatic change in the church's role in the emerging global society, and as pastors we need to be prepared for this change. For example, read Tom Friedman's The World is Flat and ask where is the church?
5. So, what would I recommend for the average seminary student to learn apart from the traditional theoretical knowledge and ministry skills? It is impossible to learn everything, and not advisable all at once. Therefore, I think learning how to function entrepreneurially is the key to the future of the ministry in the context of organizational leadership. What this means is that pastors learn to lead their congregations to innovate and change instead of trying to hold on to methods that are clearly no longer working. This means that they are equipping members for ministry. Show where your members are in ministry, and I can tell you about the effectiveness of the church's leadership.
6. I am not suggesting that we get further away from the Scriptures. I am suggesting that if the Scriptures are all you read, that you will end up manipulating Scripture to explain away why the church is failing. And this is what we have been doing for a generation or more.
7. Let me state my perspective this way. For too long, the church and the professional clergy, of whom I have been one for 25 years, have hidden behind the idea that the church is in exile, that we are different, and that we should sequester ourselves away from the evils of the world, even the "consumerist" evils of business. While we were in hiding, the world changed, and the church is slowly adapting to that change. We are holding out for pie-in-the-sky while the world goes to hell. The world is God's creation and we are called to be stewards of it. This isn't an environmental or a political call to action, but a call to fulfill our calling as God's human creation.
Let me give you one example of what I see. Over the past ten to twelve years, the world of communication change dramatically. The advent of internet technology that was simple and cheap enough for anyone to acquire and use made it possible for people to communicate with people all over the globe. I work with both churches and businesses, and I am always surprised by how few churches use this tool for connecting with their members. It suggests to me that the problem isn't technology, but human community. Our standards for community in the church regardless of theological, social or economic level is pretty low. There is no urgency for me to care for anyone as a result. We come to church because it meets a need, and we are satisfied with fast food.
Chris, you complained about consumerist methodologies in ministry. Let me say as bluntly and as clearly as I can, that every church currently operating today is working off a consumerist model. The differences are what the consumers are coming to church to select and purchase. They may be coming to be entertained by pop Christian music. Or they are coming to get their weekly security fix or to visit the museum of memories. For the most part, they are not coming to be transformed into the likeness and character of Jesus Christ. They are not coming to lay their life down for others as an act of gratitude to Jesus Christ. No, we are all consumerists. Some of us are just better at hiding it.
8. I believe churches in the near future will increasingly adopt the business models that I describe in my Innovative Business Ideas series. I think this will happen because of the shift from a consumerist model that is dead to a missional one that is alive. If that shift doesn't take place, then those churches will continue to decline and close.
When I look at the kinds of innovative things that business are doing today - read Mavericks at Work to get an idea of what I'm talking about - I wonder, why are not more churches doing the same kind of innovative things. In reality, for the past twenty years, more and more churches have been making this transition from what they used to be to what they will be in the future, and it has primarily been in the missional realm. People want to participate in things that are Personally Meaningful and Socially Fulfilling, and mission work fulfills both. It is about Values and People.
The hard truth, Chris, is that simply stating Scripture texts will not be sufficient to provide a "relevant, objective criteria" for measuring the effectiveness of the church. So, when you ask me for that criteria, I take your question seriously, and suggest to you and to other pastors that learning how to be entrepreneurial and innovative as congregation leaders is how that needs to be measured. To be innovative and entrepreneurial is a mindset that requires a new set of skills.
Where should pastors start? Do the following.
1. Ask the youngest business person in your congregation what business book had the most influence upon them. Read the book asking the question, "What relevance does this have to the church?" Then talk with them about what you see.
2. Subscribe to a business magazine like FastCompany or BusinessWeek. Before you subscribe, buy a couple copies and sample them.
3. Train yourself to think practically. Ask of every idea, regardless of its source, "How do I apply it? How do I put it into action?" When it is clear and compelling, then do it.
Do this and there won't be as much pablum, manipulation or consumerist stuff going on in your church. Do it and the Gospel will take on a fresh authenticity because it will be shown to be effective in the lives of people. Do it and you will see, not merely believe, the Holy Spirit at work in your ministry. And ultimately, as difficult as it is to measure, that is the measure we seek. To be used by God to be an effective minister of the Gospel for this time and in the place where he has put us.
Thanks for your comment. God bless you.