The Collapse of Evangelicalism?

by Troy Jackson 03-17-2009

In the March 10 edition of The Christian Science Monitor, Michael Spencer predicts “the coming evangelical collapse.” Much of his assessment of the white evangelical church in the United States is spot on. Far too many congregations have become consumers of Christian programming rather than followers of Jesus Christ. Many have been co-opted by the leaders of the so-called “culture wars,” forfeiting the power of Jesus’ gospel of love and grace for hate-filled attempts to protect and defend Judeo-Christian mores. Churches and Christians that have bought into this direction are withering away. Pruning is necessary.

But in many circles, the evangelical church that I see is sprouting and blossoming. The picture of evangelicals often painted in media assessments is outdated and incomplete. While the critiques offered by Spencer are not wrong, God’s spirit continues to allow healthy seeds to take root and grow both on the margins and in some of the largest churches in this nation. As I look at the landscape of the evangelical church, I am more hopeful today than at any point in my adult life.

While I don’t have any hard data, I have seen a lot of anecdotal evidence of new fruit-bearing branches of renewal over the past few years:

1. What I witnessed at PAPAFEST 2006 in Tennessee (repeated in 2008 in Illinois). The gathering was filled with young people committed to not being conformed to the pattern of this world, but to being transformed by the renewing of their minds. The festival speaks to a larger renewal movement that includes, but is not limited to, what has been called “New Monasticism.” Groups like Rutba House in Durham, North Carolina, the Simple Way in Philadelphia, and Vineyard Central in Cincinnati are committing to personal and social transformation rooted in Christ-inspired love for one another.

2. The emerging Faith & Justice Movements in Boston and New York City. Lisa Sharon Harper (NYC) and Rachel Anderson (Boston) have been overseeing networks of hundreds of Christians (including many evangelicals) in these two cities who are coming together to both grow in Christ and further justice in their communities. These excellent organizations are training and inspiring Christians in their cities to be agents of transformation that will make a difference for the marginalized in their communities and around the world.

3. The so-called “Mega-Church” is getting involved in working for justice. Community Christian Church in the Chicago area announced they were giving away their entire offering last Sunday to support efforts for evangelism and justice in Chicago and around the world. They ended up collecting and giving away over $400,000. The congregation, which began in Naperville, Illinois, is also working in nearby East Aurora, and not primarily through charity. They are investing time, energy, and resources to apply the principles of John Perkins’ Christian Community Development model to be a part of this largely immigrant community. They are but one example of a mega-church that is growing rapidly in what it means to “do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God.”

4. Many evangelicals are being reshaped by the best of the mainline, Catholic, and Orthodox traditions. They are learning from the vibrant justice traditions that have been few and far between for evangelicals over the last 50 years. They are also being reshaped by the rich and deep spirituality of the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. Henri Nouwen and Thomas Merton are being read alongside Rick Warren and Brian McLaren.

A few weeks ago, I joined a group of pastors and Christian leaders in Cincinnati who are working to covenant together in our commitment to bring the Good News of Jesus to our city in fresh and powerful ways in the years to come. This diverse gathering of evangelical leaders (Caucasian & African-American) never once talked of culture wars. Instead we talked of prayer, of humility, of confronting our city’s history of racism, and of biblical righteousness and justice.

Next month, thousands of Christ-followers, including many evangelicals will come to Washington, D.C., for Sojourners’ Mobilization to End Poverty. This faith-based gathering will demonstrate some powerful undercurrents, movements of God’s Spirit, to reshape not only the white evangelical church, but also the broader church of Jesus Christ in this country and around the world.

Perhaps Michael Spencer is right—the evangelical church as commonly imagined by pundits is about to collapse, but a church that is more biblically-grounded and Spirit-led is emerging, and I’m excited to see and taste some of its first fruits!

Troy Jackson is senior pastor of University Christian Church in Cincinnati, a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary, and earned his Ph.D. in United States history from the University of Kentucky. He is author of Becoming King: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Making of a National Leader (Civil Rights and the Struggle for Black Equality in the Twentieth Century) and a participant in Sojourners’ Windchangers grassroots organizing project in Ohio.

Categories: Faith and Politics, Ministry

PASTOR JEFF

Hear, hear, Kevin. We all see through a glass darkly and understand in part. We are all heretics commanded to walk in love.

neuro_nurse

I knew YOU were joking.

jmndodge

Spenser and Jackson make valid points about evangelicalism as the term is used in popular culture. The discussion here is not relevant to the points they raised. Evangelicalism is in trouble because be have lost the ability to examine ourselves, and feed on the good news. I'll check later and see if the discussion becomes related to the challenges facing evangelicals today.

kevin47

I concede that if you run away from every Catholic teaching that is distinctly Catholic, you no longer have heretical teaching. If Catholicism doesn't believe the Pope to be supreme, or that Mary celebrated some special ascent to heaven, then Catholicism is not heretical.

BuckeyeDon

Roast away!

So where should we hold the burning?

BuckeyeDon

"By your definition of opinion and doctrinal difference, there can be no heresy. If the aggregated interpretation of councils and scholars yields no weight, then there is no reason to believe the Bible is true."

You love to misconstrue church history, don' t yoiu? It's the councils that declare certain teachings to be heresy--not Kevin Sawyer. That has been my point all along. Councils have never weighed against the RC teachings that you are regarding as "heretical."

"Papal supremacy has, historically, been predicated on the infallibility of the pope."

Sorry, but no. Papal infallibility is a rather recent doctrine. Papal supremacy, however, is very old--at least as the time of Pope Gregory the Great, though the claims grew over time.

"To say that someone cannot err because they are speaking from the holy spirit is heretical."

Says Kevin Sawyer. But of course, you misconstrue the teaching. I won't elaborate further, because you obviously don't wish to try and understand it. You just want to label it heretical and leave it at that.

But I will say one thing. The pope is not infallible all the time. He's regarded as infallible only when he speaks out of his God-given authority. The term used is when he speaks ex cathedra (from the chair, i.e., the papal seat). Only then is his pronouncement regarded as infallible. And as I said, that's only happened twice. At other times, he's no more infallible than anyone else.

"And would you care to defend the elevation of Mary to the status of some sort of pseudo-deity?"

Straw man, Kevin (or should I say straw woman?). The official teaching of the RC Church does not do this. I won't say, though, that some Catholics, in their private piety, might come close to this. But that's another matter.

BlueDeacon

Not sure how I could deliberately miss a point you had yet to make, but okay.

You just made my point.

I dismissed it because your "study" consists of a very narrow selection of anecdotes, and because the history of an ideology is not necessarily reflexive of its merits.

Kevin, that is a lie -- I have even given you direct quotes from people who were involved from the beginning and you dismissed even those.

They link themselves when they compare Barack Obama to Joshua and call him our pastor-in-chief. The literal distance between the organization and the party doesn't particularly matter to me, though you overstate it.

There is something called "descriptive" writing that is a tad different from an uncritical endorsement. And besides, conservative policies have proven such a failure that anyone who offers a different path will be seen a bringing hope. Too bad that's lost on some people.

The Sojo of today is quite different, and less ideological, than the Post-American of the 1970s.

Not true, and even if that were the case it's because the evangelical church over the years has become more ideological. And you can blame the conservatives, where everything is based on ideology, for that. Recall that Jerry Falwell insulted Wallis, as quoted on this very blog, as "as evangelical as an oak tree" because he doesn't toe the conservative line.

"Then, again, why are you here (if not to take offense to disagreement)?"

To disagree.

If you're going to do that effectively, you need to come up with a different approach. The one you've consistently used doesn't work here.

Nathan Bedford

The word "heretic" is such an emotionally charged word that I think we should avoid its use as much as possible. It evokes images in past years of people being burned at the stake or being branded as witches. Whoever the perpetrators were, they constituted the majority while the victims were in the minority. (Which is as good an argument that I can think of for keeping church and state as separate entities.)

Although those of us who post here come from many church traditions, I think that we can differ in our beliefs while respecting those who hold different views. . To my friends who are Seventh Day Adventists, I may tell them why I worship on Sunday, but refrain from calling them heretics. To those who hail from church traditions that encourage the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages, I explain why I don't drink but I don't call them heretics. When a fellow-Christian tells me that she can't adorn herself with gold jewelry or makeup, I respond that I respect her decision but I don't call her a heretic.

I realize that there are areas of our society in which private religious beliefs may intersect with state and federal laws, but I am confident that just as we have found a way to avoid drafting the Amish people for military service, we can figure out a way to accomodate a wide variety of faiths and doctrines. Referring to our fellow-Christians as heretics does nothing to advance the cause of Christ or comity.

kevin47

"You deliberately miss the point. The Catholic Church is free to make
any pronouncements it can; it's up to individuals to implement them in
a practical manner."

Not sure how I could deliberately miss a point you had yet to make, but okay.

" As you know, I've actually studied its history -- which you have dismissed because it makes it look bad"

I dismissed it because your "study" consists of a very narrow selection of anecdotes, and because the history of an ideology is not necessarily reflexive of its merits.

"and until the early 1990s even read some of its publications. "

Well, that makes you a subject matter expert, doesn't it?

"Except that Sojo has never been part of the Democratic Party
establishment, and your constant linking of the two doesn't change that
fact."

They link themselves when they compare Barack Obama to Joshua and call him our pastor-in-chief. The literal distance between the organization and the party doesn't particularly matter to me, though you overstate it. Sojo universally tows the party line.

" It has existed since the early 1970s and has never depended on the party or any other political institution to keep it afloat. "

The Sojo of today is quite different, and less ideological, than the Post-American of the 1970s.

"Then, again, why are you here (if not to take offense to disagreement)?"

To disagree.

BlueDeacon

Kevin -- You deliberately miss the point. The Catholic Church is free to make any pronouncements it can; it's up to individuals to implement them in a practical manner.

No, you impute what you conceive to be the conservative line (which you base solely on a series of personal anecdotes) into my defense of conservatism.

I probably know more about conservatism than you do, which is why I'm not a conservative. As you know, I've actually studied its history -- which you have dismissed because it makes it look bad -- and until the early 1990s even read some of its publications. The kind of pronouncement you just made is one reason I have trouble taking you seriously.

I reject that idea that any Christian organization should be as intertwined with the interests of either political party as is Sojourners. My statements, if you would bother to examine them rather than making blanket declarations about them, largely fall into this category.

Except that Sojo has never been part of the Democratic Party establishment, and your constant linking of the two doesn't change that fact. Jim Wallis will tell you that he had the ear of the Clinton White House until he passed the welfare "reform" bill. By contrast, "religious right" groups were far more intertwined with the GOP to a point that, in the eyes of the public, "conservative" and "evangelical" became synonymous.

That leads to another reason why you're dead wrong about Sojo similarly being allied with the Democrats, which apparently bears repeating: It has existed since the early 1970s and has never depended on the party or any other political institution to keep it afloat. I discovered this blog in 2004 and I'm not sure just how long it's been operating, but even if the Democratic Party's fortunes wane Wallis will keep on doing what he's been doing.

I take no offense at disagreement.

Then, again, why are you here?

neuro_nurse

That is an opinion with which I disagree.

kevin47

"Nonsense -- as the Catholic Church is by definition episcopal, what you hear actually represents the official line."

Contradicts:

"The Catholic Church is not an American institution and thus doesn't have to deal with political realities here;"

It's the official line, or it isn't.

"I have said before and will say again that, had the abortion not been
co-opted in the 1970s by the right wing, you would see a more strongly
anti-abortion focus from Sojo in particular and liberals in general. "

Pejorative terms aside, I agree with this. If the Democrats opposed legal abortion, so would Sojo. This adds nothing to the argument that Sojo is consistent in terms of social justice.

"But, in the time you've been here, you've yet to give any solid reason
for your disagreements other than maintaining the standard conservative
line, which most of us here don't accept for a number of reasons;
therefore, you bring no new insight. "

No, you impute what you conceive to be the conservative line (which you base solely on a series of personal anecdotes) into my defense of conservatism.

Moreso, I reject that idea that any Christian organization should be as intertwined with the interests of either political party as is Sojourners. My statements, if you would bother to examine them rather than making blanket declarations about them, largely fall into this category.

"And it does seem to offend you that a different view on the issues actually exists."

I cannot defend myself against what you have decided I seem to be, but I take no offense at disagreement.

Nathan Bedford

1 a: adherence to a religious opinion contrary to church dogma b: denial of a revealed truth by a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church c: an opinion or doctrine contrary to church dogma
2 a: dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice b: an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards

Using the Merriam Webster definition quoted above, heresy would incorporate a wide spectrum of doctrines. If you sprinkle, then you are heretical to the dunkers; if you serve real wine at communion you are heretical to the grape juicers. To paraphrase JFK, "ich in bein heretics."

BlueDeacon

First of all, the Catholic teaching on social justice varies depending on the Catholic.

Nonsense -- as the Catholic Church is by definition episcopal, what you hear actually represents the official line. There may be specific individuals and groups that deviate, but the church makes very clear that they don't speak for it.

If Sojourners were nearly as consistent as the Catholic church on these issues, I would have more respect for the organization.

The Catholic Church is not an American institution and thus doesn't have to deal with political realities here; however, Sojo, which is connected with no specific ecclesiastical body and thus has a different mission, in practice is and does. I have said before and will say again that, had the abortion not been co-opted in the 1970s by the right wing, you would see a more strongly anti-abortion focus from Sojo in particular and liberals in general. (After all, it was liberals that originally had abortion banned in the late 1800s, but only with popular support.)

Third, I have no problem with people being left leaning. I simply disagree with their politics. This has absolutely nothing to do with heresy.

But, in the time you've been here, you've yet to give any solid reason for your disagreements other than maintaining the standard conservative line, which most of us here don't accept for a number of reasons; therefore, you bring no new insight. And it does seem to offend you that a different view on the issues actually exists.

kevin47

By your definition of opinion and doctrinal difference, there can be no heresy. If the aggregated interpretation of councils and scholars yields no weight, then there is no reason to believe the Bible is true. If I interpret the commandment not to kill as an admonishment to collect baby porcupines, I am embracing a heretical notion.

To say that someone cannot err because they are speaking from the holy spirit is heretical. You cannot be inerrant sometimes, and in error other times. That is sheer invention. This is why modern Catholics run away from the concept. Well, that, and because it's kinda crazy.

Papal supremacy has, historically, been predicated on the infallibility of the pope. But yes, the trajectory of Catholic teaching has been that popes have toggled between fallible and infallible. This one is fallible, I think, is the consensus, but supremacy cannot be taken independently of infallibility.

If it could, it still contradicts Paul's teaching on the role of leaders within the church, not to mention the appointing of twelves apostles who were to go forth and make disciples.

And would you care to defend the elevation of Mary to the status of some sort of pseudo-deity?

kevin47

Your evidence does not support your assertion, though the invocation you reference was in defense of a teaching that is, itself, heretical.

kevin47

"Then what are you complaining about?"

Heresy, which is not the same as error.

"Point it out? That's all you do on this blog (especially since
Catholic social justice teaching leans politically liberal, and we know
you feel about that)."

Well, in the face of this overwhelming case, I'll respond.

First of all, the Catholic teaching on social justice varies depending on the Catholic. Second, to the degree that Catholics call for governmental intervention, they do so to address all manner of social justice issues, including abortion. If Sojourners were nearly as consistent as the Catholic church on these issues, I would have more respect for the organization.

Third, I have no problem with people being left leaning. I simply disagree with their politics. This has absolutely nothing to do with heresy.

Nathan Bedford

"I hope you're joking."

I just can't get away with anything on this site. You guys are on to me.

(But I did enjoy reading the "How many angels can fit on the tip of a needle" discussion below.)

And we wonder why Christians blow each other up in Northern Ireland; why Israelis hate Arabs and vice-versa.

"And we can be certain that some happy day, someone will set the powder off, and we will all be blown away.

BuckeyeDon

They're still based on opinions. Heresy doesn't consist of difference of opinion.

Let's just take one example--the one I brought up. You wrote:
"Papal supremacy directly contradicts scripture."

According to Catholic interpretation of Scripture (especially Peter's confession in Matthew 16), papal supremacy is quite compatible. Just because others read the same Scripture and arrive at a different conclusion doesn't mean the Catholic church is guilty of heresy. You are misusing the word. We're talking about doctrinal differences here, not heresy.

And papal infallibility (not the same thing as papal supremacy, by the way) is not rooted in some notion of human infallibility, a notion that Catholics would also reject. Rather, it's rooted in the very biblical belief that Christ gave the church the Holy Spirit to lead and guide the church into all truth. Therefore, when the church speaks out of its Christ-given authority, the church, and the pope as the representative of Christ to the church, cannot speak in error, simply because the Holy Spirit cannot err. And as neuro_nurse points out below, the pope last invoked papal infallibility almost sixty years ago--and that was only the second time ever.

Again, you are free to disagree with that understanding of the authority Christ gave the Christian church and how it plays out in the real world. But it is wrong to call that belief heresy. Again, we're talking about doctrinal differences here, not heretical beliefs.

neuro_nurse

"Virtually every Catholic church teaches in error by any biblical standard"

That is a matter of interpretation.

As far as the Church is concerned, we're right and everyone else is wrong.