One of the questions that must be asked is, "Is correlation the same as causation?" There may be a statistical correlation - but for an entirely different reason.
Indeed. But whether or not there's causality doesn't affect the trajectory of growth or decline, which the chap behind the site examines more directly in Growth, Decline and Extinction of UK Churches. Looking at what he calls churchmanship:
All the evangelical denominations are growing, except for the Brethren. By contrast, all the mixed denominations are declining, with the liberal ones declining the most.
And as he concludes:
One thing is clear, if things carry on as they are, the future of Christianity does not lie in the hands of the older denominations. These products of the Reformation and Puritan times have run their course. They have fulfilled God’s purposes and are no longer part of his plan. The Church of England will cease to be a national church, and the Churches of Scotland and Wales will disappear by the middle of this century. Instead, God will work through the next cycle of denominations – Pentecostal and Evangelical ones, picking up the pieces left by the extinct historic churches.
Much of his work reminds me of business projections. In evangelicalism, church looks like a numbers game.
I used to think that there could be an unlikely-sounding correlation between "people who die of lung cancer" and "people who sit on the top deck of buses" - not so unlikely in fact, because smoking was allowed upstairs. On the other hand, the assertionthat "churches grow because they promote traditional family families" would need careful testing; lots of other factors will inevitably be at work. Indeed, churches which grow don't necessarily know why they are growing!
My observation is that evangelical churches usually have theories about why they're growing, which are often related to beliefs about their growth. Whether they're right about the reasons is another matter. Many churches seem squeamish about testing the theories.
The whole problem is with the measurement. If growth of numbers of attenders is your measure, then the more evangelical churches will win, because they also measure their success in this way. And so they push to get more people, to open more churches, to grow numerically.
I don't think that is the right measure. It is pretty well the only measure that makes sense to use - that is quantifiable. But it is still wrong.
We should be measuring whether the population is more caring, more like Jesus, more tolerant of others, more spiritual. And I don't see that, but I don't know how it would be measured either.
I think the aim of evangelicalism is to create more Christians - people who have a personal relationship with Jesus. Dragging them into church is how this is measured. I think evangelical churches that are growing see themselves, using the proxy measure of church attendance, as doing a better job at creating Christians.
Looking at it another way, church is more of a means to an end than the end itself. It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ.
The whole problem is with the measurement. If growth of numbers of attenders is your measure, then the more evangelical churches will win, because they also measure their success in this way. And so they push to get more people, to open more churches, to grow numerically.
I don't think that is the right measure. It is pretty well the only measure that makes sense to use - that is quantifiable.
We are, after all, children of capitalism. Evangelical churches have just done a better job of picking this up and running with it.
But it is still wrong.
We should be measuring whether the population is more caring, more like Jesus, more tolerant of others, more spiritual. And I don't see that, but I don't know how it would be measured either.
Or we could abandon the idea that these things need to be measured at all.
I think the aim of evangelicalism is to create more Christians - people who have a personal relationship with Jesus. Dragging them into church is how this is measured. I think evangelical churches that are growing see themselves, using the proxy measure of church attendance, as doing a better job at creating Christians.
Looking at it another way, church is more of a means to an end than the end itself. It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ.
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
The idea that the historic Churches would head into extinction and that only the evangelical and charismatic/Pentecostal ones would survive is a position I'd have espoused back in the '80s and early '90s.
It's not a position I hold now, although I do believe the historic Churches will have to become leaner and fitter.
In fairness to our evangelical friends, I don't think it's fair today they 'drag' people into church.
Most evangelical converts in my experience come from connections people in these churches make with family, friends, colleagues or various social programmes rather than evangelistic campaigns as such.
They also develop styles and 'atmosphere' that can make it easier for people to get involved in a 'belonging before believing' sense.
Not all evangelicals stand on street corners haranguing passers-by.
The programmed evangelism tends to mobilise and motivate them but the actual conversions tend to happen more 'organically'.
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
When I wrote that church is more of a means to an end than the end itself, what I had in mind is that the ecclesiology of such a church has been captured by capitalism to such an extent that its capacity to be church is seriously degraded (for want of a description). It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
I'm sorry - you've lost me there. I would have thought that many evangelical churches exhibit a high degree of cohesion by their members to the church community, far more so than less "rigorous" versions of Christianity in which people "go to church" in an individualistic sense, or "make their Communion".
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.
You advanced the following argument:
"It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ."
My question was; is there any evidence that fast growing evangelical churches are worse on this measure compare to other types of churches? As @Baptist Trainfan says above they are also more likely to engage in the kinds of deliberate community formation (Alpha/Home/Affinity Groups) that are likely to foster a connection with other Christians (that "body of Christ").
It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
Okay, but a commodified experience can exist alongside both mass and (to @Baptist Trainfan's point) niche markets, and it's not clear to me that evangelical/charismatic churches are necessarily worse at this (and they might even be better for the reasons mentioned above).
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
I only read about a third of the thesis earlier in the week, but I get the idea that he might not end up landing where he started.
I'd agree with @Baptist Trainfan to a great extent here insofar that Capital T Traditions with a very 'High' view of Church often have very 'low' levels of 'commitment' in attendance/involvement.
Hence the use of the term 'faithful' to refer to the regulars and keenness.
The Orthodox canons only 'require' attendance at Easter, for instance. Regular communion is comparatively recent.
Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
That's a challenge for all of us, whatever kind of church we attend.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
I do think that the business of nurturing faith development after initiation is a serious problem for traditional churches. Not everything can be done in the course of one service, however rich. In particular, it doesn't do much digestion or any integration between church and the rest of life. Doing this well can increase the organic cohesion of the church, and build up the body of Christ as a functioning whole.
Or we could abandon the idea that these things need to be measured at all.
Oh totally. Sort of my point - we cannot measure something ,so lets not bother. Lets stop being (as someone pointed out) driven the the unlimited growth metric of capitalism.
I think one of the real problems I have with some/many evangelical churches is they focus on "new people" - they assume they are growing when they have significant numbers of new people.
Ignoring the fact that they are probably also losing people.
I was at one large, vibrant evangelical church, that you would have said was doing well, and growing, especially if you looked at the numbers of new people. But at the AGM, it was revealed that actual numbers in the congregation (on the electoral roll, specifically, this being Anglican) had dropped. This was ignored - because the church was clearly growing.
It is a well recorded fact that if you give people a metric, they will work to that metric. If you assume that metric is a good proxy for something else, as in this case (and so often), then you will probably be misled. Even if it is a pretty reasonable proxy - and most of the time, they are not.
We do need to take into account the general pond differences in the Evo end of churches.
Also there are Evo/Charismatic ends in most denominations. I have been members of both a Baptist Church and a C of E church that were both Evo/charismatic, as well as attending a big Pentecostal church while studying there. It is not that straight forward. The basic denomination has a big influence. My Church of England church performed, Enfant baptism, Dedications and adult baptisms. My Baptist Church only had adult baptisms (as a small child you cannot believe and be baptised) and dedications. They both valued what was called Friendship Evangelism as opposed to street preaching (which rarely works in these days. We spend less time on the street than other generations). If you believe that people need to sort out their relationship with God before they die you will be motivated to encourage them to do so. It is not just a numbers game.
That said, lower numbers can affect none traditional churches badly. They may not have an organisation to help them out. Traditional parish churches do.
I was at one large, vibrant evangelical church, that you would have said was doing well, and growing, especially if you looked at the numbers of new people. But at the AGM, it was revealed that actual numbers in the congregation (on the electoral roll, specifically, this being Anglican) had dropped. This was ignored - because the church was clearly growing.
It is a well recorded fact that if you give people a metric, they will work to that metric. If you assume that metric is a good proxy for something else, as in this case (and so often), then you will probably be misled. Even if it is a pretty reasonable proxy - and most of the time, they are not.
This is all completely true, but at the same time I would want to dig into those figures a little. For instance - and this goes back to allusions up thread to some kind of catechesis - I think churches of all kind are far less likely to stress *some* distinctives including denomination and membership. So growth at the top can still lead to a smaller electoral roll due to attrition and new members (in all but name) falling out of the habit of signing up.
Because a lot of this sounds like cope; "Those evangelical churches aren't attracting new people, and even if they are they are losing their old members, and even if they are not they aren't connecting with people and even if they are they are all horrible anyway and don't act like proper Christians".
And again consumerism / transactionalism can come in multiple forms; is attendance at cathedrals really increasing because of the sense of community they offer? And in the age of gentrification of formerly poorer areas of cities, some churches can be the religious equivalent of the boutique cafe, when compared to the multi-ethnic pentecostal church down the road.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
Elsewhere I've posted in response to @Baptist Trainfan that there is something of a paradox in that many churches with a 'High' ecclesiology have 'low' expectations of commitment and involvement.
Conversely, many churches which may be deemed to have a 'low' ecclesiology place very high expectations and demands on their congregations and participants.
In practice, I've found that there's always been a small group of 'keenies' who bear the burden of keeping things going, irrespective of whether a particular church community is 'High', 'Low' or all stations in between.
Just a few further thoughts...
On cathedral worship, I think the 'community' angle said to be found in cathedrals these days came after and in response to visible increase in the numbers of people attending cathedral services since around 2000.
I certainly don't think the community angle is the main focus apart from some individual cases. I spoke to a chap before and after a cathedral Evensong in a famous cathedral last week who clearly attended anything and everything that was going. He was clearly lonely and found the services helpful in terms of proving an opportunity for some human interaction.
But the 'draw' would generally be, I suggest, the architecture, music, aesthetics, heritage and the fact that they aren't playing guitars and expecting people to demonstrate overt displays of religious emotion.
Whether this amounts to anything in 'missional' terms depends on which direction we are coming from.
@Hugal, yes, there is of course a range of practice and emphases across the evangelical spectrum and I agree that US and UK evangelicalism are different beasts.
I tend to think that the more 'programmed' forms of evangelism do feed into the more effective forms of 'friendship evangelism' and social/community action that evangelical churches engage in.
This is where the 'activist' part of the Bebbington Quadrilateral kicks in. Whatever formal outreach programmes evangelical churches engage in, I'd suggest that it's the more relational aspects that 'pay off' in terms of church growth or the building of community - Alpha courses and the like, soup runs, debt counselling etc etc as well as interaction with family and friends.
The formal programmes act as a kind of 'glue' for building community and what sociologists call 'plausibility structures.'
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
"It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ."
My question was; is there any evidence that fast growing evangelical churches are worse on this measure compare to other types of churches? As @Baptist Trainfan says above they are also more likely to engage in the kinds of deliberate community formation (Alpha/Home/Affinity Groups) that are likely to foster a connection with other Christians (that "body of Christ").
Thanks. The short answer regarding evidence is that I don't think adequate metrics are readily available.
While church attendance might serve as a proxy for connection to the person of Christ, I am not convinced that it makes a workable proxy for connection to the body of Christ. To be clear, and to address other posts here, I would not consider one's active participation in one's own congregation's activities to particularly correlate with connection to the body of Christ.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity. In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
There remains the question of how other types of church would fare (which still seems a reasonable question). I suspect that a number of them would also not do so well on this count.
It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
Okay, but a commodified experience can exist alongside both mass and (to @Baptist Trainfan's point) niche markets, and it's not clear to me that evangelical/charismatic churches are necessarily worse at this (and they might even be better for the reasons mentioned above).
This makes me think of café church and bijou café church. And to wonder if or how the niche market premium is made manifest.
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
I only read about a third of the thesis earlier in the week, but I get the idea that he might not end up landing where he started.
I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
@chrisstiles - yes, and I don't know the details, especially more recently. My point was more that they believed they were growing because they were attracting new people.
But the real picture was different. They were attracting new people (and yes, they were probably not signing up immediately). But they were not looking at the whole picture.
I suspect - from what I have heard as well as experience - that families would leave when their kids had grown or were no longer interested. Or when they had got them into the right school.
And - as in a work environment - new people are not the same as longer term people. New people come in with all sorts of ideas, without knowing How Things Are Done.
But also, some people who leave - they will leave the faith, they will be harmed and damaged. And that is the responsibility of the church.
Overall - if you measure positivity and impact by new members, that is what you will focus on.
@chrisstiles - yes, and I don't know the details, especially more recently. My point was more that they believed they were growing because they were attracting new people.
But the real picture was different. They were attracting new people (and yes, they were probably not signing up immediately). But they were not looking at the whole picture.
Okay, but if you don't know the details how do you know what the real picture was? I'd agree that it was a bad metric, but there's a bit of double think here, evangelicals churches apparently never grow properly, but also their churches and church plants are popping up everywhere.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity.
Presumably this would operate at a material level, and not just on the plane of intellectual assent. So in that sense while activate participation in one's Church may not be a necessary and sufficient indicator, I'd expect there to be some loose correlation because this is where most people meet other Christians (who are always a source of difference and possible disagreement).
In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
Again, I'd want to see how this is actually embodied in practice, rather than presented intellectually.
This makes me think of café church and bijou café church. And to wonder if or how the niche market premium is made manifest.
I suspect there are various forms of signalling exclusivity (for instance - a quick glance at Ecclesiantics)
I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
I think this kind of critique may be rather more prevalent than that (witness a good proportion of his bibliography), and I found it largely orthogonal to the context of this particular discussion.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
It isn't that I didn't 'understand', rather I couldn't see the relevance of the point you were making.
I cited an instance of a former elder in a 'new church' set-up who said he'd been burned out by all the hyperactivity and you somehow felt the need to point out an 'alternate' scenario as if I was completely unaware that the situation you described might actually occur.
If I'd have said, 'This vicar/minister/priest was bone idle,' would you have felt the need to point out that there are clergy persons/ministers out there who work very hard? As if I wouldn't be aware of that already?
Or if I said, "There are 'stave-churches' in Norway made out of wood,' would you have felt the need to point out that there church buildings made out of stone, brick and other materials elsewhere?
I was quoting what a particular person told me about his experience of ministry in a particular neck of the Christian woods. It is axiomatic that other people's experience might be different elsewhere.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
I was quoting what a particular person told me about his experience of ministry in a particular neck of the Christian woods. It is axiomatic that other people's experience might be different elsewhere.
Coming after:
"Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense."
It read as an example of a general tendency - and I was pointing out that the counter is likely to be far more common - especially in the UK.
Ok. Although I will point out that my comment did have a 'both/and' aspect to it. As indeed, most of my comments do.
It can be benign. It can also be very intense. Both/and.
Be that as it may, I don't disagree on the general point you've raised.
A very liberal vicar once observed to me that both the 'High' and 'Low' ends of the spectrum can "take over your life."
I s'pose the issue is the extent to which 'intensity' or its opposite is baked-in systematically.
This seems to vary across congregations in all manner of traditions.
I would say that my own parish can have a tendency towards superstition and what evangelical charismatics might call 'super-spirituality' at times.
Other parishes I know seem less prone to those tendencies.
@Gamma Gamaliel Back to the OP on how Evangelical Christianity has changed. Earlier this year, I attended a course at an Anglican church very different from the Anglo-Catholic tradition in which I usually worship. I went with a friend. This church is evangelical/charismatic, with guitar bands on a stage for the "worship" a far cry from where I'm at. But they were running John Mark Comer's course, " Practicing the way." I had read the book and was interested to see how it was presented.
I admire people like Comer. When we think of the mystical side of Christianity, it's always Orthodox or Catholic, and often monsstic. Those things are almost completely absent from Evangelical Protestantism, and have been since the Reformation. John Mark Comer is seeking to reintroduce the discipline of contemplation, fasting, and having a rule of life. He quotes from the Church Fathers and many Catholic mystics. I don't think we would have seen such things twenty years ago, and to me, it's a welcome development.
I'm concerned about Mark Comer, and for the same reason I'm concerned about many mystics (not all). It seems to me that in mysticism and similar forms of Christianity, it's very common to turn faith in Jesus into a rrogram of works--a rule of life designed to help you advance by your own effort (with or without the Spirit!) into being more Christ-like. And all of this sounds very praiseworthy. But it is not Christianity.
Jesus cried out, "Come to ME, you who are weary and heavy laden." Again and again he points us to himself as the answer to all our needs. He never points us to a program, however brilliant. Indeed, he says, "Without me, you can do nothing."
It seems to me that Comer centers the program--an imitation of Christ's life. He is not centering Christ. And to do that is to make a very fundamental mistake that ends up in tears, because ultimately, it's founded on human effort.
@Lamb Chopped I don't want to derail this into a faith vs works argument, but I still believe that faith without works is dead (Jas2.17). The Imitation of Christ by Thomas A Kempis, a medieval work, and one of the most read books in Christian history is about conforming one's life to Christ's. About denying self and taking up one's cross. The obsession with Sola Fide began with Luther. It wasn't part of Christian doctrine for the first 1500 years and isn't held by the majority of Christians today. Jesus said that to enter the Kingdom of God keep the commandments.
The question is, are you taking Christ to be a guide to a pathway greater than himself? Or is he correct when he says "I myself am the way?"
If he's merely another teacher and guide, well, we've thousands of them, what's one more? But if he is God revealing himself to the world, and acting in truth, mercy and love to the ones he made--well, that's a very different matter.
@Lamb Chopped I have never gone along with the idea that mentally assenting to who Christ was, or what he did is the be all and end all of salvation. Neither is that the only interpretation which has gained traction in Christianity. I would go more with, "and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"(Heb 5.9)
Of you consider obeying Christ to be works based salvation rather than faith alone, I'm all for it. Even faith and belief are not synonymous. Faith, as in faithfulness or fidelity, to Christ's commandments requires much work on our part.
Evangelicalism, along with most of Western Protestant traditions, has inherited a potentially unhelpful emphasis on salvation as a pseudo-legal transaction: Christ paying the penalty for our sin, paying the ransom to free us from sin, defeating the powers of sin that bind us. A model that leans towards a "single event" view of salvation (whether you define that as a decision by an individual to follow Christ, or the event two millennia ago when Christ declared "it is finished" on the Cross or rose from the tomb). There is a lot of value in that view, but if that's all there is then it's lacking a lot of depth, especially when it's so so heavily focused on grace only that as individuals we have no real say which leads to the more extreme forms of Predestination adopted by some followers of Calvin.
What Evangelicalism often lacks is a concept of sanctification to sit alongside, but distinct from, salvation. Salvation is a mystery where it's both by grace of God alone independent of works but also our decision (and, making a decision is a "work"), a mystery where both diametrically opposed "it's God's grace alone" and "we need to make a choice" sit in synergy. But, sanctification is simpler to understand - those who are saved continue to grow into the likeness of Christ and increasing holiness as a process that's a cooperation between God (especially as the indwelling Spirit empowering us) and the people of God (especially the Church as community). Evangelicalism has always had that strand of activism, covering practical demonstrations of love through charitable works, evangelism and piety, but quite often a very weak theology of sanctification. Very often Evangelicalism has struggled with where activism, that we almost instinctively do, fits within a strong "faith not works" message. IMO that's in part because we've confused salvation and sanctification, and in some cases limited our understanding of the role of the Spirit to just particular manifestations taken as evidence of salvation.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity.
Presumably this would operate at a material level, and not just on the plane of intellectual assent. So in that sense while activate participation in one's Church may not be a necessary and sufficient indicator, I'd expect there to be some loose correlation because this is where most people meet other Christians (who are always a source of difference and possible disagreement).
I think it's pretty integral to the concept of unity in the body of Christ that it has material, observable consequences. And I'd expect to see evidence of this at a local level.
But difference and disagreement exist within most social groups. And social groups form around all manner of shared beliefs. In this regard, when someone has made a commitment to a relationship with the person of Christ, it doesn't seem particularly notable that, if you're at all sociable, you'd be motivated to spend time with like-minded individuals who had made a similar commitment (and to need to deal with difference and disagreement).
I've always understood the claim of unity in the body of Christ to be distinctive. What I'm looking for is something that captures this with regard to individual members of the body, as they relate to any other member of the body, near or far.
Alongside this, it occurs to me that looking at the issue of unity across a mixed evangelical / liberal grouping of churches could be revealing - for example, the disparate subgroups of the Anglican Communion.
In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
Again, I'd want to see how this is actually embodied in practice, rather than presented intellectually.
Agreed. But I can at least envisage ways of how this could be investigated and researched.
I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
I think this kind of critique may be rather more prevalent than that (witness a good proportion of his bibliography), and I found it largely orthogonal to the context of this particular discussion.
I accept this isn't its aim, but I think it provides useful insights into why contemporary evangelicalism has a changing face, and maybe some pointers to how the forces of change might operate.
However, in relation to *critical self-examination*, he points out that little examination of the relationship between evangelicalism and capitalism has been done by evangelicals.
It seems that accounts made by Evangelicals intramurally in order to understand Evangelicalism in relationship to capitalism, are rather rare. Capitalism may be the water that Evangelicals swim in and fail to notice, let alone question.
@pablito1954 , I remember when Celebration of Discipline by Richard Foster was a thing in 1980s Uni Christian Union circles. Fasting (which I could never manage!) and meditation -which I never had time for!
@Merry Vole I remember that too. Like you I was never any good at fasting. In the 1980's I would have had no idea about meditation. Now as a senior, I practice reciting the Jesus Prayer and resting in God's presence. These things were common practice in the early church and still are within some Christian traditions. But they abruptly died out in the West with the Reformation. It pleases me that some, from within the Protestant tradition, seek to revive these lost treasures of the Christian faith.
@Alan Cresswell I completely believe that salvation comes from grace and can't be earned. As a universalist I believe that the salvific grace of which I speak, will eventually extend to all of God's creation. However, I think our cooperation is required to unfold the process of sanctification within an individual life.
Unity has been used over and over again to silence prophetic voices. It needs to be dethroned. How unified or fissile it is is a useful guide as to the current state and general culture of any group, but I am entirely convinced that it is wildly unhelpful when treated as the primary goal of church governance. Discernment is still required as to how far to push any given point of difference, but the party departing should not always be blamed for their departure. Donkeys are not always saints.
@pablito1954 and @Lamb Chopped - I haven't read Comer so can't comment on whether or not he is centring on Christ or on a 'programme' or set of techniques.
What I would say, though, is that there was certainly an interest among some evangelicals in the medieval mystics and forms of contemplative prayer about 25 to 30 years ago. I think that has accelerated over the last 20 years, but in a very selective way.
There has been a growing interest in things like pilgrimage, so-called 'Celtic' spirituality, spiritual-accompaniment (formerly known as 'spiritual direction') and so forth over the last few decades across Protestantism in general, and not just evangelicals.
I welcome that trend, as you might expect.
What might bother me, though, as an Orthodox Christian isn't so much the issue @Lamb Chopped raises (it may well be an issue, I don't know), but the way these things can be dislocated from Big T Tradition.
Let me explain.
I'm not saying that the RCs and Orthodox should say, 'That's ours! We did that first! We are going to slap a dirty great big Big T trademark on it ...'
No. If people benefit from pre-Reformation and pre-Schism practices then great. Bring it on. Provided they don't reintroduce Indulgences and Masses for the dead and so on ... 😉
But the kind of things that evangelicals adopt every now and then (I remember a prayer-rope fad about 30 years ago) tend to be torn out of context and treated as some kind of consumerist trend.
So people are happy to have a nun to provide spiritual-accompaniment, say, but aren't prepared to introduce or embrace monasticism in their own settings.
But I don't wish to be uncharitable.
As for Mysticism, well, true mysticism whether within Eastern or Western Christianity is always centred on Christ.
I'd also suggest that genuine mystics are always very 'grounded' and would often (if not always) be the last to apply the epithet 'Mystic' to themselves.
Think of Brother Lawrence peeling potatoes.
Orthodox tend to have an issue with some aspects of Franciscan and late-medieval and Counter-Reformation mysticism.
Yet if East and West were ever reunited then I don't doubt we'd have no hesitation in recognising many of these mystics as Saints.
Well, some firebrands on Mount Athos might take more persuasion.
At any rate, I wouldn't want to be so curmudgeonly as to deny evangelicals or anyone else from exploring the riches of the older Christian traditions of both East and West.
More power to their elbows if they do.
But I dunno ... it's not so much a 'cultural appropriation' thing but a contextual one.
It's great, for instance, that the Jesuits make Ignatian spirituality readily available for people from other Christian traditions to 'use' but it obviously works more naturally its own context as part of spiritual formation within that tradition.
I have no problem with other Christians using icons, to give another example. But they make more 'sense' in an Orthodox context as they are more integrated into other elements of praxis.
Similarly, I've always felt that worship songs and praise bands function more effectively in the kind of churches that developed these particular models.
I'm not saying that there's no room for cross-fertilisation but I do feel that a pick'n'mix approach is ultimately unsatisfactory.
@Lamb Chopped I have never gone along with the idea that mentally assenting to who Christ was, or what he did is the be all and end all of salvation. Neither is that the only interpretation which has gained traction in Christianity. I would go more with, "and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him"(Heb 5.9)
Of you consider obeying Christ to be works based salvation rather than faith alone, I'm all for it. Even faith and belief are not synonymous. Faith, as in faithfulness or fidelity, to Christ's commandments requires much work on our part.
I'm trying to get away from the faith vs works framework you're casting this in. To me, the problem with Comer or any programmatic approach to spiritual growth is that it de-centers Jesus Christ, the person. He gets turned into a guide to something else.
But that's not the way he presents himself anywhere in the gospels. There it's "come to me!" repeated again and again. "They don't need to go away," he tells the disciples. "Bring them to me." "Bring the children to me," he says, and the same about any number of suffering people. "Come to me and drink," he says to the spiritually thirsty. " Eat the bread of life that I will give you and live forever... this bread which i will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Even with regards to the Scripture he tells the scholars that "they point to me... yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life". He considers himself the destination, not a guide. To have him is to have life; he and the Father are one, and whoever has Jesus has God, period. To be with him, united to him, is life and peace and forgiveness and all other good things. And he never sends any seeker elsewhere.
If you really want to do faith vs works we could, though maybe on a different thread. But what I'm after here is Christ vs anything else. He is never a means to something else--some esoteric truth or what have you. He is the End, the goal, what it's all about. And that is the truth that gets lost so easily in a lot of mysticism (not all!).
Oh, and this thing you mention of "mental assent"-- that's the least of it, this is a union of faithfulness that can cost one's life, and has done for millions. Of course works flow out of such a union with Christ! But Christ is the center, not works, not theological formulae, not trumpeting about faith, none of that. He is the center. If you want, we can argue about details elsewhere. But this is the foundation.
Also @pablito1954 it must be pointed out that Catholic Europe and the Catholic Americas were very much part of the West post-Reformation, and that contemplative practices didn't just disappear in Protestant countries the moment the eg Elizabethan Religious Settlements came into law in England - both in remnants of Catholicism in Protestant countries, and also in arguably contemplative Protestant traditions such as Quakerism.
Also, there are examples of the religious life in Lutheranism and Methodism as well as in Anglicanism.
We do need to take into account the general pond differences in the Evo end of churches.
One that comes to mind is the relationship of evangelicalism to political institutions.
My Church of England church performed, Enfant baptism, Dedications and adult baptisms. My Baptist Church only had adult baptisms (as a small child you cannot believe and be baptised) and dedications. They both valued what was called Friendship Evangelism as opposed to street preaching (which rarely works in these days. We spend less time on the street than other generations).
Reflecting on my time as an evangelical, I would still take street preaching over "friendship evangelism" any day of the week.
I admire people like Comer. When we think of the mystical side of Christianity, it's always Orthodox or Catholic, and often monsstic. Those things are almost completely absent from Evangelical Protestantism, and have been since the Reformation. John Mark Comer is seeking to reintroduce the discipline of contemplation, fasting, and having a rule of life. He quotes from the Church Fathers and many Catholic mystics. I don't think we would have seen such things twenty years ago, and to me, it's a welcome development.
I looks to me as though John Mark Comer has done an effective job of repackaging a particular take on discipleship for a contemporary evangelical market. I wonder if he recognises the water he's swimming it.
Unity has been used over and over again to silence prophetic voices. It needs to be dethroned. How unified or fissile it is is a useful guide as to the current state and general culture of any group, but I am entirely convinced that it is wildly unhelpful when treated as the primary goal of church governance. Discernment is still required as to how far to push any given point of difference, but the party departing should not always be blamed for their departure. Donkeys are not always saints.
Thanks, ThunderBunk. I have no interest in enthroning unity. When those in power start talking about unity, those who disagree with them are right to start being worried.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Christ is the centre, @Lamb Chopped and any evangelical worth their salt would insist on that.
Heck, many of them would tell me that I'm somehow detracting from the centrality of Christ because as an Orthodox Christian I venerate Mary and the Saints and invoke their prayers.
I've not read Comer but can you cite instances where he puts fasting or contemplative practices as ends in themselves rather than 'means' (to borrow a Reformed term) by which we may draw closer to Christ?
I understand where you are coming from and why you might rightly be suspicious of programmes and formal 'techniques' as it were. I'd share that comcern to an extent but would also see set programmes and systematic 'methods' (to borrow a Methodist term) as, at their best, a means by which we may deepen our spiritual walk and draw closer to Christ.
Surely that's what any spiritual practice in a Christian context is all about, be it congregational hymn-singing or contemplative prayer or Bible study, preaching or whatever else?
The degree to which these things may or may not help us depends on a whole range of factors and contextual issues, far too complex to outline here.
That doesn't mean I consider all spiritual practices in each and every Christian tradition to be equally valid or efficacious - if we can put it that way. But neither would I consider any to be without value, unless it was something clearly off-the-wall like some 'name it and claim it', "positive confession' type Prosperity Gospel malarkey.
Even there I'd posit that God could still 'use' or work through that stuff despite its dodginess.
As far as Comer goes, I s'pose my bottom line would be that if people start with him and use his stuff as a springboard to exploring 'proper' mystical praxis as recognised and endorsed by Holy Tradition then great. Bring it on.
If it strengthens their faith in their own context and brings them closer to Christ, then fine.
But then, I've never heard of the guy until this thread and haven't read any of his stuff so I might be missing something.
In this regard, when someone has made a commitment to a relationship with the person of Christ, it doesn't seem particularly notable that, if you're at all sociable, you'd be motivated to spend time with like-minded individuals who had made a similar commitment (and to need to deal with difference and disagreement).
That's true, but people have also described in this thread and others how people are both attracted to and stay in these churches because of the personal ties they make with other members of the congregation, it's remarked upon often enough that it becomes something of a superlative.
I've always understood the claim of unity in the body of Christ to be distinctive. What I'm looking for is something that captures this with regard to individual members of the body, as they relate to any other member of the body, near or far.
Okay, but most people don't think in hypotheticals except in a handful of areas in their life. They are less likely to have any kind of settled on 'Charismatic Evangelicals' than they are to Sue down the road who is unsettlingly cheerful, and given to saying things like 'as the Lord leads'.
Alongside this, it occurs to me that looking at the issue of unity across a mixed evangelical / liberal grouping of churches could be revealing - for example, the disparate subgroups of the Anglican Communion.
This is probably a subject for another thread, but in this particular case I'd want a framing of unity and what it might mean.
However, in relation to *critical self-examination*, he points out that little examination of the relationship between evangelicalism and capitalism has been done by evangelicals.
"It seems that accounts made by Evangelicals intramurally in order to understand Evangelicalism in relationship to capitalism, are rather rare. Capitalism may be the water that Evangelicals swim in and fail to notice, let alone question."
There's obviously some truth to the stereotypical response to "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind", but I think that this is true across all traditions (bar Catholicism - because of Catholic Social Teaching - but then that comes in its pro-capitalist forms too), equally I don't see much Christian writing in any tradition that really grapples with the insights on capitalist subjectivity and desire from modern philosophy and critical theory
Gamaliel, your request for primary sources is a good one, and I regret I can't give it to you right now. When I wrote what I did about Comer, I did it on the basis of a secondary source that seemed to me very trustworthy--especially because it was larded with quotations from the man himself, which were the source of my concerns. Normally I would have gone straight for his own works, but I am a) post-surgical and b) 13 weeks away from getting my request fulfilled at the library. It would be wonderful to learn that my secondary source was completely wrong, and that in fact he centers Christ. But the quotations in that article sure didn't look like it.
Gamaliel, your request for primary sources is a good one, and I regret I can't give it to you right now. When I wrote what I did about Comer, I did it on the basis of a secondary source that seemed to me very trustworthy--especially because it was larded with quotations from the man himself, which were the source of my concerns. Normally I would have gone straight for his own works, but I am a) post-surgical and b) 13 weeks away from getting my request fulfilled at the library. It would be wonderful to learn that my secondary source was completely wrong, and that in fact he centers Christ. But the quotations in that article sure didn't look like it.
I know you to be one for primary sources and due diligence in research, @Lamb Chopped given posts of yours I've read on research matters in the past.
I've Googled John Mark Comer and come across objections to his writings from certain sections of the evangelical world.
I've not read anything by him so I can't really comment save to make some general and broad-brush observations:
- Some Protestants are so averse to any hint or smidgeon of a suggestion that 'works' play any part in the overall scheme of things that they avidly sniff these things out in anything and everything they read. I'm not saying your secondary source does so but that tendency is there.
- At the same time, there can also be a Protestant tendency to systematise and regulate everything to the extent that it can become formulaic. The 'Five Points' of This, the '16.753 Points of That', 'The 7 Key Points to Improving Your Prayer Life', the numerological speculations found in Dispensationalist schemas and even the way Pentecostals set out lists as to the number of spiritual gifts we might expect to exercise. It sorta comes with the territory.
- There's a lot of self-help philosophy and how-to stuff within some Protestant subcultures and I wouldn't be surprised if that comes out in Comer's writings. Forgive me, but US religious culture seems infused by all that right across the board. It's a capitalist thing. The Western world on general has it.
- At the risk of being misunderstood, I'd also suggest that things like contemplative prayer and spiritual practices that have emerged from particular traditions can, I said 'can' not that they inevitably will become a bit clunky and formulaic if they lose their moorings from the tradition or Tradition in which they originated.
While I'm at it, I think we should define what we mean by 'mysticism'.
I'd regard you as one of the more mystical Shipmates on these boards, @Lamb Chopped - but that might be because I'm working with a different notion of mysticism than the one which you and other Shipmates might be applying here.
What Evangelicalism often lacks is a concept of sanctification to sit alongside, but distinct from, salvation. Salvation is a mystery where it's both by grace of God alone independent of works but also our decision (and, making a decision is a "work"), a mystery where both diametrically opposed "it's God's grace alone" and "we need to make a choice" sit in synergy. But, sanctification is simpler to understand - those who are saved continue to grow into the likeness of Christ and increasing holiness as a process that's a cooperation between God (especially as the indwelling Spirit empowering us) and the people of God (especially the Church as community).
I've been considering this from a capitalist perspective, in which I would characterise sanctification as being about personal growth (which doesn't seem too far removed from the above description).
Capitalism doesn't have a problem with growth as such - it's pretty integral to the system. However, any growth usually accrues to owners or investors. It doesn't, as a rule, accrue to consumers. Capitalism's relationship to personal growth (in contrast to prosperity) appears complex.
Guess what they're selling at the holiness counter
I'm not a fan of analogy, but a comparison that comes to mind is with health, and the difficulty, in our (westernised) societies, of getting people to live healthier lives. What we can see is the way in which health has been commodified as healthier lifestyle, now a consumer sector in its own right, in which (for example) all manner of dubious substances can be packaged up and sold as "health" bars for convenient consumption.
A capitalist approach to addressing the problems of capitalism inherent in evangelicalism (again) puts me in mind of John Mark Comer. Alongside the plugs and links for his books and podcasts, his "personal" website contains the following:
I’m a teacher and writer.
For nearly two decades, I was the founding pastor at Bridgetown Church in Portland, Oregon. We spent many years working out discipleship to Jesus in the post-Christian West, and organized our community around a simple idea: practicing the Way of Jesus together.
In 2021, after leading a five-year initiative around spiritual formation we called “Practicing the Way,” I stepped away from my role to create simple, beautiful formation resources for church communities around the world.
Today, I’m developing new practices, courses, and podcasts for Practicing the Way and living in Topanga Canyon, California with my wife T and our three kids.
I’m also the New York Times bestselling author of seven books, including my newest manifesto: Practicing the Way, the bestselling The Ruthless Elimination of Hurry, and Live No Lies, God Has a Name, and Garden City.
I hold a master’s degree in Biblical and Theological Studies from Western Seminary, but these days you’ll find me out walking the oak groves of the Santa Monica mountains working on my next project.
Maybe what he's selling does provide an answer to the problem he's addressing. But either way, it looks like a solution that arises, and has been constructed, from within a capitalist framing and understanding. (In which, for example, each consumer creates for themselves their own personal Rule of Life.)
Evangelicalism has always had that strand of activism, covering practical demonstrations of love through charitable works, evangelism and piety, but quite often a very weak theology of sanctification. Very often Evangelicalism has struggled with where activism, that we almost instinctively do, fits within a strong "faith not works" message. IMO that's in part because we've confused salvation and sanctification, and in some cases limited our understanding of the role of the Spirit to just particular manifestations taken as evidence of salvation.
My experience is that most of the activism is directed towards salvation. I would also note that the traditional focus in evangelicalism is more on *assurance* of salvation than salvation itself. (In modern times, probably more evident post-commitment.)
This was memorably born out by my personal experience: I can still remember the moment when I was made aware of the doctrine of the assurance of salvation, which came as a bit of a surprise, and even a shock. Was this really what evangelicals believed? Did we really have so little confidence in the author and perfecter of our faith?
Comments
My observation is that evangelical churches usually have theories about why they're growing, which are often related to beliefs about their growth. Whether they're right about the reasons is another matter. Many churches seem squeamish about testing the theories.
I don't think that is the right measure. It is pretty well the only measure that makes sense to use - that is quantifiable. But it is still wrong.
We should be measuring whether the population is more caring, more like Jesus, more tolerant of others, more spiritual. And I don't see that, but I don't know how it would be measured either.
Looking at it another way, church is more of a means to an end than the end itself. It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ.
We are, after all, children of capitalism. Evangelical churches have just done a better job of picking this up and running with it.
Or we could abandon the idea that these things need to be measured at all.
Is there any particular evidence that the evangelical churches that are growing fastest are doing this badly by comparative measures?
Up thread there was a mention of the mostly contingent reasons people end up in a particular church vs another, and personal connections are going to factor heavily into that - so a lot of people are at least entering the church being attached to some part of the existing 'body of Christ'. Evangelical churches are also more likely to have some kind of programmatic commitment to activities which attach people to the 'body of Christ' (Alpha/Beta groups, home groups etc).
It's not a position I hold now, although I do believe the historic Churches will have to become leaner and fitter.
In fairness to our evangelical friends, I don't think it's fair today they 'drag' people into church.
Most evangelical converts in my experience come from connections people in these churches make with family, friends, colleagues or various social programmes rather than evangelistic campaigns as such.
They also develop styles and 'atmosphere' that can make it easier for people to get involved in a 'belonging before believing' sense.
Not all evangelicals stand on street corners haranguing passers-by.
The programmed evangelism tends to mobilise and motivate them but the actual conversions tend to happen more 'organically'.
Not just evangelicals.
There's an interesting analysis here
https://www.pillarcatholic.com/p/bibles-and-islam-the-unexpected-roots
As I wrote earlier, Jason Paul Clark starts his thesis by asking (as an evangelical minister) if his church has “become captive to a mode of ‘dispensing religious goods and services’ to consuming participants”.
When I wrote that church is more of a means to an end than the end itself, what I had in mind is that the ecclesiology of such a church has been captured by capitalism to such an extent that its capacity to be church is seriously degraded (for want of a description). It's in this sense that people living out a relationship with Christ, through a commodified experience of church, are being connected to the body of Christ to a lesser extent (or less effectively) than they have been connected to the person of Christ.
You advanced the following argument:
"It could be argued that what evangelicals are good at is attaching people to the *person* of Christ, what they are less good at is attaching people to the *body* of Christ."
My question was; is there any evidence that fast growing evangelical churches are worse on this measure compare to other types of churches? As @Baptist Trainfan says above they are also more likely to engage in the kinds of deliberate community formation (Alpha/Home/Affinity Groups) that are likely to foster a connection with other Christians (that "body of Christ").
Okay, but a commodified experience can exist alongside both mass and (to @Baptist Trainfan's point) niche markets, and it's not clear to me that evangelical/charismatic churches are necessarily worse at this (and they might even be better for the reasons mentioned above).
I only read about a third of the thesis earlier in the week, but I get the idea that he might not end up landing where he started.
Hence the use of the term 'faithful' to refer to the regulars and keenness.
The Orthodox canons only 'require' attendance at Easter, for instance. Regular communion is comparatively recent.
Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense.
I met a former elder from one of the 'new church' networks Thomas week at a poetry event. A lovely chap. He reflected that it nearly 'broke' him and he had 'burned out' for a time. 'Everything revolved around church and what did or didn't happen on a Sunday morning or in mid-week house-groups,' he observed. 'It wasn't really integrated into everyday life.'
That's a challenge for all of us, whatever kind of church we attend.
Drat that predictive text!
Okay, but can I paint an alternate scenario? Someone goes to a Church in a 'High' tradition, but as they gradually become less mobile and they attend less frequently they lose all contact with their church, until at some point it just stops.
Oh totally. Sort of my point - we cannot measure something ,so lets not bother. Lets stop being (as someone pointed out) driven the the unlimited growth metric of capitalism.
I think one of the real problems I have with some/many evangelical churches is they focus on "new people" - they assume they are growing when they have significant numbers of new people.
Ignoring the fact that they are probably also losing people.
I was at one large, vibrant evangelical church, that you would have said was doing well, and growing, especially if you looked at the numbers of new people. But at the AGM, it was revealed that actual numbers in the congregation (on the electoral roll, specifically, this being Anglican) had dropped. This was ignored - because the church was clearly growing.
It is a well recorded fact that if you give people a metric, they will work to that metric. If you assume that metric is a good proxy for something else, as in this case (and so often), then you will probably be misled. Even if it is a pretty reasonable proxy - and most of the time, they are not.
Also there are Evo/Charismatic ends in most denominations. I have been members of both a Baptist Church and a C of E church that were both Evo/charismatic, as well as attending a big Pentecostal church while studying there. It is not that straight forward. The basic denomination has a big influence. My Church of England church performed, Enfant baptism, Dedications and adult baptisms. My Baptist Church only had adult baptisms (as a small child you cannot believe and be baptised) and dedications. They both valued what was called Friendship Evangelism as opposed to street preaching (which rarely works in these days. We spend less time on the street than other generations). If you believe that people need to sort out their relationship with God before they die you will be motivated to encourage them to do so. It is not just a numbers game.
That said, lower numbers can affect none traditional churches badly. They may not have an organisation to help them out. Traditional parish churches do.
This is all completely true, but at the same time I would want to dig into those figures a little. For instance - and this goes back to allusions up thread to some kind of catechesis - I think churches of all kind are far less likely to stress *some* distinctives including denomination and membership. So growth at the top can still lead to a smaller electoral roll due to attrition and new members (in all but name) falling out of the habit of signing up.
Because a lot of this sounds like cope; "Those evangelical churches aren't attracting new people, and even if they are they are losing their old members, and even if they are not they aren't connecting with people and even if they are they are all horrible anyway and don't act like proper Christians".
And again consumerism / transactionalism can come in multiple forms; is attendance at cathedrals really increasing because of the sense of community they offer? And in the age of gentrification of formerly poorer areas of cities, some churches can be the religious equivalent of the boutique cafe, when compared to the multi-ethnic pentecostal church down the road.
Your point?
This scenario happens all the time. I don't see what's so 'alternative' about it.
Elsewhere I've posted in response to @Baptist Trainfan that there is something of a paradox in that many churches with a 'High' ecclesiology have 'low' expectations of commitment and involvement.
Conversely, many churches which may be deemed to have a 'low' ecclesiology place very high expectations and demands on their congregations and participants.
In practice, I've found that there's always been a small group of 'keenies' who bear the burden of keeping things going, irrespective of whether a particular church community is 'High', 'Low' or all stations in between.
Just a few further thoughts...
On cathedral worship, I think the 'community' angle said to be found in cathedrals these days came after and in response to visible increase in the numbers of people attending cathedral services since around 2000.
I certainly don't think the community angle is the main focus apart from some individual cases. I spoke to a chap before and after a cathedral Evensong in a famous cathedral last week who clearly attended anything and everything that was going. He was clearly lonely and found the services helpful in terms of proving an opportunity for some human interaction.
But the 'draw' would generally be, I suggest, the architecture, music, aesthetics, heritage and the fact that they aren't playing guitars and expecting people to demonstrate overt displays of religious emotion.
Whether this amounts to anything in 'missional' terms depends on which direction we are coming from.
@Hugal, yes, there is of course a range of practice and emphases across the evangelical spectrum and I agree that US and UK evangelicalism are different beasts.
I tend to think that the more 'programmed' forms of evangelism do feed into the more effective forms of 'friendship evangelism' and social/community action that evangelical churches engage in.
This is where the 'activist' part of the Bebbington Quadrilateral kicks in. Whatever formal outreach programmes evangelical churches engage in, I'd suggest that it's the more relational aspects that 'pay off' in terms of church growth or the building of community - Alpha courses and the like, soup runs, debt counselling etc etc as well as interaction with family and friends.
The formal programmes act as a kind of 'glue' for building community and what sociologists call 'plausibility structures.'
It's an alternative to your scenario of too much activity. I'm not sure what you didn't understand.
While church attendance might serve as a proxy for connection to the person of Christ, I am not convinced that it makes a workable proxy for connection to the body of Christ. To be clear, and to address other posts here, I would not consider one's active participation in one's own congregation's activities to particularly correlate with connection to the body of Christ.
My thinking is that the one of the key characteristics of the body of Christ is unity. In that regard, I think it would be more telling to look at an individual's (eg self-identifying follower of Christ's) attitude to those they disagree with or who they identify as holding opposing views - particularly those in other churches or denominations. (And there might be other qualities that could be considered.)
There remains the question of how other types of church would fare (which still seems a reasonable question). I suspect that a number of them would also not do so well on this count.
This makes me think of café church and bijou café church. And to wonder if or how the niche market premium is made manifest. I like his attitude. It's the first time in a long time that I've thought there may be some hope for evangelicalism. This kind of critical self-examination was completely absent from my experience as an evangelical. (Although I'd like him to think a bit further outside the box.)
But the real picture was different. They were attracting new people (and yes, they were probably not signing up immediately). But they were not looking at the whole picture.
I suspect - from what I have heard as well as experience - that families would leave when their kids had grown or were no longer interested. Or when they had got them into the right school.
And - as in a work environment - new people are not the same as longer term people. New people come in with all sorts of ideas, without knowing How Things Are Done.
But also, some people who leave - they will leave the faith, they will be harmed and damaged. And that is the responsibility of the church.
Overall - if you measure positivity and impact by new members, that is what you will focus on.
Okay, but if you don't know the details how do you know what the real picture was? I'd agree that it was a bad metric, but there's a bit of double think here, evangelicals churches apparently never grow properly, but also their churches and church plants are popping up everywhere.
Presumably this would operate at a material level, and not just on the plane of intellectual assent. So in that sense while activate participation in one's Church may not be a necessary and sufficient indicator, I'd expect there to be some loose correlation because this is where most people meet other Christians (who are always a source of difference and possible disagreement).
Again, I'd want to see how this is actually embodied in practice, rather than presented intellectually.
I suspect there are various forms of signalling exclusivity (for instance - a quick glance at Ecclesiantics)
I think this kind of critique may be rather more prevalent than that (witness a good proportion of his bibliography), and I found it largely orthogonal to the context of this particular discussion.
It isn't that I didn't 'understand', rather I couldn't see the relevance of the point you were making.
I cited an instance of a former elder in a 'new church' set-up who said he'd been burned out by all the hyperactivity and you somehow felt the need to point out an 'alternate' scenario as if I was completely unaware that the situation you described might actually occur.
If I'd have said, 'This vicar/minister/priest was bone idle,' would you have felt the need to point out that there are clergy persons/ministers out there who work very hard? As if I wouldn't be aware of that already?
Or if I said, "There are 'stave-churches' in Norway made out of wood,' would you have felt the need to point out that there church buildings made out of stone, brick and other materials elsewhere?
I was quoting what a particular person told me about his experience of ministry in a particular neck of the Christian woods. It is axiomatic that other people's experience might be different elsewhere.
Hence my challenge.
Coming after:
"Conversely, of course, some very 'low church' settings have very high expectations of attendance/participation by their members. That can be quite benign but it can also be very intense."
It read as an example of a general tendency - and I was pointing out that the counter is likely to be far more common - especially in the UK.
It can be benign. It can also be very intense. Both/and.
Be that as it may, I don't disagree on the general point you've raised.
A very liberal vicar once observed to me that both the 'High' and 'Low' ends of the spectrum can "take over your life."
I s'pose the issue is the extent to which 'intensity' or its opposite is baked-in systematically.
This seems to vary across congregations in all manner of traditions.
I would say that my own parish can have a tendency towards superstition and what evangelical charismatics might call 'super-spirituality' at times.
Other parishes I know seem less prone to those tendencies.
But mileage varies as they say aboard Ship.
I admire people like Comer. When we think of the mystical side of Christianity, it's always Orthodox or Catholic, and often monsstic. Those things are almost completely absent from Evangelical Protestantism, and have been since the Reformation. John Mark Comer is seeking to reintroduce the discipline of contemplation, fasting, and having a rule of life. He quotes from the Church Fathers and many Catholic mystics. I don't think we would have seen such things twenty years ago, and to me, it's a welcome development.
Jesus cried out, "Come to ME, you who are weary and heavy laden." Again and again he points us to himself as the answer to all our needs. He never points us to a program, however brilliant. Indeed, he says, "Without me, you can do nothing."
It seems to me that Comer centers the program--an imitation of Christ's life. He is not centering Christ. And to do that is to make a very fundamental mistake that ends up in tears, because ultimately, it's founded on human effort.
If he's merely another teacher and guide, well, we've thousands of them, what's one more? But if he is God revealing himself to the world, and acting in truth, mercy and love to the ones he made--well, that's a very different matter.
Of you consider obeying Christ to be works based salvation rather than faith alone, I'm all for it. Even faith and belief are not synonymous. Faith, as in faithfulness or fidelity, to Christ's commandments requires much work on our part.
What Evangelicalism often lacks is a concept of sanctification to sit alongside, but distinct from, salvation. Salvation is a mystery where it's both by grace of God alone independent of works but also our decision (and, making a decision is a "work"), a mystery where both diametrically opposed "it's God's grace alone" and "we need to make a choice" sit in synergy. But, sanctification is simpler to understand - those who are saved continue to grow into the likeness of Christ and increasing holiness as a process that's a cooperation between God (especially as the indwelling Spirit empowering us) and the people of God (especially the Church as community). Evangelicalism has always had that strand of activism, covering practical demonstrations of love through charitable works, evangelism and piety, but quite often a very weak theology of sanctification. Very often Evangelicalism has struggled with where activism, that we almost instinctively do, fits within a strong "faith not works" message. IMO that's in part because we've confused salvation and sanctification, and in some cases limited our understanding of the role of the Spirit to just particular manifestations taken as evidence of salvation.
But difference and disagreement exist within most social groups. And social groups form around all manner of shared beliefs. In this regard, when someone has made a commitment to a relationship with the person of Christ, it doesn't seem particularly notable that, if you're at all sociable, you'd be motivated to spend time with like-minded individuals who had made a similar commitment (and to need to deal with difference and disagreement).
I've always understood the claim of unity in the body of Christ to be distinctive. What I'm looking for is something that captures this with regard to individual members of the body, as they relate to any other member of the body, near or far.
Alongside this, it occurs to me that looking at the issue of unity across a mixed evangelical / liberal grouping of churches could be revealing - for example, the disparate subgroups of the Anglican Communion.
Agreed. But I can at least envisage ways of how this could be investigated and researched.
I accept this isn't its aim, but I think it provides useful insights into why contemporary evangelicalism has a changing face, and maybe some pointers to how the forces of change might operate.
However, in relation to *critical self-examination*, he points out that little examination of the relationship between evangelicalism and capitalism has been done by evangelicals.
@Alan Cresswell I completely believe that salvation comes from grace and can't be earned. As a universalist I believe that the salvific grace of which I speak, will eventually extend to all of God's creation. However, I think our cooperation is required to unfold the process of sanctification within an individual life.
@pablito1954 and @Lamb Chopped - I haven't read Comer so can't comment on whether or not he is centring on Christ or on a 'programme' or set of techniques.
What I would say, though, is that there was certainly an interest among some evangelicals in the medieval mystics and forms of contemplative prayer about 25 to 30 years ago. I think that has accelerated over the last 20 years, but in a very selective way.
There has been a growing interest in things like pilgrimage, so-called 'Celtic' spirituality, spiritual-accompaniment (formerly known as 'spiritual direction') and so forth over the last few decades across Protestantism in general, and not just evangelicals.
I welcome that trend, as you might expect.
What might bother me, though, as an Orthodox Christian isn't so much the issue @Lamb Chopped raises (it may well be an issue, I don't know), but the way these things can be dislocated from Big T Tradition.
Let me explain.
I'm not saying that the RCs and Orthodox should say, 'That's ours! We did that first! We are going to slap a dirty great big Big T trademark on it ...'
No. If people benefit from pre-Reformation and pre-Schism practices then great. Bring it on. Provided they don't reintroduce Indulgences and Masses for the dead and so on ... 😉
But the kind of things that evangelicals adopt every now and then (I remember a prayer-rope fad about 30 years ago) tend to be torn out of context and treated as some kind of consumerist trend.
So people are happy to have a nun to provide spiritual-accompaniment, say, but aren't prepared to introduce or embrace monasticism in their own settings.
But I don't wish to be uncharitable.
As for Mysticism, well, true mysticism whether within Eastern or Western Christianity is always centred on Christ.
I'd also suggest that genuine mystics are always very 'grounded' and would often (if not always) be the last to apply the epithet 'Mystic' to themselves.
Think of Brother Lawrence peeling potatoes.
Orthodox tend to have an issue with some aspects of Franciscan and late-medieval and Counter-Reformation mysticism.
Yet if East and West were ever reunited then I don't doubt we'd have no hesitation in recognising many of these mystics as Saints.
Well, some firebrands on Mount Athos might take more persuasion.
At any rate, I wouldn't want to be so curmudgeonly as to deny evangelicals or anyone else from exploring the riches of the older Christian traditions of both East and West.
More power to their elbows if they do.
But I dunno ... it's not so much a 'cultural appropriation' thing but a contextual one.
It's great, for instance, that the Jesuits make Ignatian spirituality readily available for people from other Christian traditions to 'use' but it obviously works more naturally its own context as part of spiritual formation within that tradition.
I have no problem with other Christians using icons, to give another example. But they make more 'sense' in an Orthodox context as they are more integrated into other elements of praxis.
Similarly, I've always felt that worship songs and praise bands function more effectively in the kind of churches that developed these particular models.
I'm not saying that there's no room for cross-fertilisation but I do feel that a pick'n'mix approach is ultimately unsatisfactory.
I'm trying to get away from the faith vs works framework you're casting this in. To me, the problem with Comer or any programmatic approach to spiritual growth is that it de-centers Jesus Christ, the person. He gets turned into a guide to something else.
But that's not the way he presents himself anywhere in the gospels. There it's "come to me!" repeated again and again. "They don't need to go away," he tells the disciples. "Bring them to me." "Bring the children to me," he says, and the same about any number of suffering people. "Come to me and drink," he says to the spiritually thirsty. " Eat the bread of life that I will give you and live forever... this bread which i will give for the life of the world is my flesh." Even with regards to the Scripture he tells the scholars that "they point to me... yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life". He considers himself the destination, not a guide. To have him is to have life; he and the Father are one, and whoever has Jesus has God, period. To be with him, united to him, is life and peace and forgiveness and all other good things. And he never sends any seeker elsewhere.
If you really want to do faith vs works we could, though maybe on a different thread. But what I'm after here is Christ vs anything else. He is never a means to something else--some esoteric truth or what have you. He is the End, the goal, what it's all about. And that is the truth that gets lost so easily in a lot of mysticism (not all!).
Also, there are examples of the religious life in Lutheranism and Methodism as well as in Anglicanism.
Reflecting on my time as an evangelical, I would still take street preaching over "friendship evangelism" any day of the week.
I looks to me as though John Mark Comer has done an effective job of repackaging a particular take on discipleship for a contemporary evangelical market. I wonder if he recognises the water he's swimming it.
Thanks, ThunderBunk. I have no interest in enthroning unity. When those in power start talking about unity, those who disagree with them are right to start being worried.
Heck, many of them would tell me that I'm somehow detracting from the centrality of Christ because as an Orthodox Christian I venerate Mary and the Saints and invoke their prayers.
I've not read Comer but can you cite instances where he puts fasting or contemplative practices as ends in themselves rather than 'means' (to borrow a Reformed term) by which we may draw closer to Christ?
I understand where you are coming from and why you might rightly be suspicious of programmes and formal 'techniques' as it were. I'd share that comcern to an extent but would also see set programmes and systematic 'methods' (to borrow a Methodist term) as, at their best, a means by which we may deepen our spiritual walk and draw closer to Christ.
Surely that's what any spiritual practice in a Christian context is all about, be it congregational hymn-singing or contemplative prayer or Bible study, preaching or whatever else?
The degree to which these things may or may not help us depends on a whole range of factors and contextual issues, far too complex to outline here.
That doesn't mean I consider all spiritual practices in each and every Christian tradition to be equally valid or efficacious - if we can put it that way. But neither would I consider any to be without value, unless it was something clearly off-the-wall like some 'name it and claim it', "positive confession' type Prosperity Gospel malarkey.
Even there I'd posit that God could still 'use' or work through that stuff despite its dodginess.
As far as Comer goes, I s'pose my bottom line would be that if people start with him and use his stuff as a springboard to exploring 'proper' mystical praxis as recognised and endorsed by Holy Tradition then great. Bring it on.
If it strengthens their faith in their own context and brings them closer to Christ, then fine.
But then, I've never heard of the guy until this thread and haven't read any of his stuff so I might be missing something.
That's true, but people have also described in this thread and others how people are both attracted to and stay in these churches because of the personal ties they make with other members of the congregation, it's remarked upon often enough that it becomes something of a superlative.
Okay, but most people don't think in hypotheticals except in a handful of areas in their life. They are less likely to have any kind of settled on 'Charismatic Evangelicals' than they are to Sue down the road who is unsettlingly cheerful, and given to saying things like 'as the Lord leads'.
This is probably a subject for another thread, but in this particular case I'd want a framing of unity and what it might mean.
There's obviously some truth to the stereotypical response to "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind", but I think that this is true across all traditions (bar Catholicism - because of Catholic Social Teaching - but then that comes in its pro-capitalist forms too), equally I don't see much Christian writing in any tradition that really grapples with the insights on capitalist subjectivity and desire from modern philosophy and critical theory
I know you to be one for primary sources and due diligence in research, @Lamb Chopped given posts of yours I've read on research matters in the past.
I've Googled John Mark Comer and come across objections to his writings from certain sections of the evangelical world.
I've not read anything by him so I can't really comment save to make some general and broad-brush observations:
- Some Protestants are so averse to any hint or smidgeon of a suggestion that 'works' play any part in the overall scheme of things that they avidly sniff these things out in anything and everything they read. I'm not saying your secondary source does so but that tendency is there.
- At the same time, there can also be a Protestant tendency to systematise and regulate everything to the extent that it can become formulaic. The 'Five Points' of This, the '16.753 Points of That', 'The 7 Key Points to Improving Your Prayer Life', the numerological speculations found in Dispensationalist schemas and even the way Pentecostals set out lists as to the number of spiritual gifts we might expect to exercise. It sorta comes with the territory.
- There's a lot of self-help philosophy and how-to stuff within some Protestant subcultures and I wouldn't be surprised if that comes out in Comer's writings. Forgive me, but US religious culture seems infused by all that right across the board. It's a capitalist thing. The Western world on general has it.
- At the risk of being misunderstood, I'd also suggest that things like contemplative prayer and spiritual practices that have emerged from particular traditions can, I said 'can' not that they inevitably will become a bit clunky and formulaic if they lose their moorings from the tradition or Tradition in which they originated.
While I'm at it, I think we should define what we mean by 'mysticism'.
I'd regard you as one of the more mystical Shipmates on these boards, @Lamb Chopped - but that might be because I'm working with a different notion of mysticism than the one which you and other Shipmates might be applying here.
That might be a subject for another thread.
Capitalism doesn't have a problem with growth as such - it's pretty integral to the system. However, any growth usually accrues to owners or investors. It doesn't, as a rule, accrue to consumers. Capitalism's relationship to personal growth (in contrast to prosperity) appears complex.
Guess what they're selling at the holiness counter
I'm not a fan of analogy, but a comparison that comes to mind is with health, and the difficulty, in our (westernised) societies, of getting people to live healthier lives. What we can see is the way in which health has been commodified as healthier lifestyle, now a consumer sector in its own right, in which (for example) all manner of dubious substances can be packaged up and sold as "health" bars for convenient consumption.
A capitalist approach to addressing the problems of capitalism inherent in evangelicalism (again) puts me in mind of John Mark Comer. Alongside the plugs and links for his books and podcasts, his "personal" website contains the following: Maybe what he's selling does provide an answer to the problem he's addressing. But either way, it looks like a solution that arises, and has been constructed, from within a capitalist framing and understanding. (In which, for example, each consumer creates for themselves their own personal Rule of Life.)
My experience is that most of the activism is directed towards salvation. I would also note that the traditional focus in evangelicalism is more on *assurance* of salvation than salvation itself. (In modern times, probably more evident post-commitment.)
This was memorably born out by my personal experience: I can still remember the moment when I was made aware of the doctrine of the assurance of salvation, which came as a bit of a surprise, and even a shock. Was this really what evangelicals believed? Did we really have so little confidence in the author and perfecter of our faith?