Finally! I’m taking the time to respond to the article by Michael Spencer that has gotten so much circulation on the web and generated some concern and fear in some Christians. I think he’s right – and he’s very wrong. I think evangelicalism very well can collapse, but that would more likely be a good thing rather than a bad thing, and I believe the church will meet the challenge that a collapse would represent.
I believe Spencer is right that evangelicalism has become a rather shallow thing theologically, for the most part doesn’t have the theological or philosophical resources to respond to the rise of secularism, and it very well could collapse. Fine. Remember that evangelicalism is not equal to Christianity – or even Protestantism.
It’s very common in history for movements to rise up within Christianity to meet a particular challenge, they serve their purpose, and then die down. But by nature, they are temporary structures. Evangelicalism rose up in the mid-20th century with a strong commitment to the authority of Scripture and evangelism when it seemed liberalism would overwhelm Christianity. That didn’t happen because of the evangelical movement. But a movement is not Christianity. And movements often have a narrower focus than the whole Body of Christianity must. So rather than the doom Spencer predicts, I think that things are out of balance, and there’s some correction that needs to take place. That is healthy.
Spencer is accurate in describing the current big challenge to Christianity – secularism. I would add to that postmodern pluralism, which recognizes religion as intrinsically subjective with no objective truth-value, thereby privatizing Christianity. That’s simply another attempt to ban Christianity from the public square, but that can’t be done unless we leave. It was a mistake for Christians to abandon the public square with the rise of naturalism in science represented in the Monkey Trial. Our response may require a shake-up in Christianity, but it must not include retreat. That will create conflict with the culture, as Spencer says, but I believe the response from the church will not be collapse but a new vibrant, substantive movement that has more theological and intellectual meat than we have right now. And that will result in more effectiveness for God’s Kingdom.
I know those resources already exist in the church, though they may not be widespread and many Christians may currently be ignorant of them. It is our Christian heritage and we have neglected it for far too long. The church has a long and deep theological history, and I believe the new need will drive Christians to rediscover this fact. What will result will be Christians with robust worldviews based on a richer foundation and understanding with much more meaning to offer those who discover that secularism is devoid of the kind of meaning and truth human beings crave. And I truly believe that many Christians are craving this kind of substance, too, yet sadly have no idea so far how meaty Christianity is.
What I hope happens is that if evangelicalism dies off – evangelicalism as the generic brand that has a mere Christianity approach so as appeal to the broadest possible audience – some denominations will rise to the challenge. Denominations that have a theological and confessional basis that can offer the meaning and substance that should characterize the church. Denominations that know how to catechize their members and ground them in the content, meaning, and worldview of Christianity. Denominations that can claim membership rather than attendance because that is what encourages accountability for the kinds of lives Christians should lead to add authenticity to the message we carry. I know these churches exist and they will not collapse. They will be rediscovered. Evangelicalism is not the whole of Protestantism, as Spencer seems to imply, and the only alternative to the collapse of evangelicalism isn’t Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox Eastern churches.
I always find it hard to discuss anything about evangelicalism because the term has become too vague. I’m never quite sure what definition anyone is using. There was a distinct theological definition at the founding of the movement, but it has taken on a more cultural sense over the 60 years since. It certainly has become a generalization. I think generally, and the way I take Spencer’s meaning, is the trend to have little denominational identity, Bible teaching focused on application, lots of programs to attract people. Those things are good in and of themselves, but they are not deep enough to draw from the full resources of historic Christianity to make the church as effective as it must be. They are not enough as the entire menu.
I think evangelicalism has become pretty thin milk – and I use that in the Biblical sense. Milk is good, but it’s not a full, balanced meal. Along with the broad appeal and a very focused diet of a certain kind of Bible teaching, a tremendous amount of the substance of Christianity that has been worked out painstakingly for 2000 years has been left on the shelf resulting in Christians who barely know what Christianity is about and are therefore handicapped in their ability to evangelize and respond to the culture. But those resources exist, and just as the founders of the evangelical movement responded in their time when the core teachings of Christianity were challenged, churches, leaders, and Christians who have been waiting to be called upon will respond with vigor to begin serving more meat resulting in better-fed Christians who then are in better shape to carry on the Great Commission.
I disagree with Spencer that evangelicalism is “identified” with the culture war. That may be the media caricature, but most evangelical churches on focused on their own members. Go to the average church any day of the week, and you won’t hear a thing about those issues. There are many and prominent organizations that have engaged moral issues that have become part of the political realm, but they are working parallel to the vast majority of congregations, not in them, turning them into political war rooms.
Rather than Christians encroaching into politics and culture, my perspective is that politics and secularism are increasingly taking on issues that are moral issues, aggressively moving to change mores and law, and then crying foul when those with a moral voice object. Christians live in this culture, too. Are we to keep quiet when we not only will be affected, but we also have an informed moral perspective to offer? A perspective that not only draws from theology – theology that stretches back multi-millennia to the foundations of western law in the Old Testament – but also draws from a long history of philosophy? Part of our biblical mandate is to be salt and light to the culture, and we would do our churches, the culture, and ourselves no good to abandon the public square to secularism.
I agree with Spencer that we’ve failed to “pass on an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.” That may be true on the whole, but there are plenty of exceptions and those people exist in the church to lead as the next challenge faces us. I disagree that Christian schools have failed. Sure, some schools exist as a retreat from the culture to avoid engagement. But many are equipping students with excellent educations to enter a variety of vocations applying a Christian worldview to whatever they do and preparing them to be thoughtful messengers in the midst of people who need God. Biola University and Hillsdale College immediately come to mind, but there are many, many others. There are many Christian parents who have not sought to incubate their children from the culture, but inoculate them and equip them to be ambassadors for Christ able to engage the culture. They will not run from it, as Spencer predicts. And they will be the vanguard of the needed change to come.
Spencer thinks that ministries will “take on a less and less distinctively Christian face in order to survive.” Some will, and good riddance. Crisis and challenge shake out the chaff. But it’s always better to know your true ranks. I agree with Spencer that other movements within Christianity that have really abandoned the foundations of the faith will disappear. Good.
The church’s refining is always what has happened throughout the history of Christianity; and it’s also what’s predicted to happen in the end times. I don’t think that’s where we are in history. But the Bible tells us that even in the Tribulation, the church will endure – the church that is truly grounded in the Truth and doing their jobs. God’s church isn’t going to pass away. As we become leaner we become more effective. Hard times have a tendency to focus the mind, will, and energies. And that is all the more true with the Holy Spirit’s help.
The church’s job has always been multitasked: teaching, catechizing, making disciples, evangelizing, missions, helping the needy, learning, thinking, and understanding the Bible, etc. That’s why God gave us the model of the Body. Evangelicalism may be focused on a narrow piece of that job description – it was created that way because it was a response to a particular need. And that may lead to its collapse. If it does, that only means that the movement has accomplished its mission God had for it and now it’s time to move on to a new and current challenge. And God will provide the resources for it for those willing to answer the call. Evangelicalism may contract rather than collapse, continuing it’s task in a smaller way.
What I hope, believe, and have a firm conviction will happen, whatever the fate of evangelicalism, is that the church – Christianity – will rediscover the theological foundation and heritage that so many saints before us labored to deliver to us on God’s behalf. Many churches have been teaching and making disciples from this heritage all along, and they have the model that will serve the church as we equip Christians and engage the culture with the new challenge at hand. Evangelicalism may or may not collapse, but Christianity never will.
