The Coming Evangelical Collapse?
The Coming Evangelical Collapse?
This reflection is a response to "The Coming Evangelical Collapse"
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html
by Michael Spencer published in The Christian Science Monitor (March 10 2009)
I have for years believed that American Evangelicalism (not Christianity) was skating on thin ice, spiritually and intellectually. As a movement we (not all of us individually) have suffered from a host of problems that began generations ago, as early as the origin of the Second Great Awakening in the early 19th century.
We have viewed Christianity individualistically—“am I right with God?” (not that this is unimportant) And in so doing have privatized the faith and have lost in large measure the larger vision of the redemption not just of individuals but society and the world.
While Christianity was founded in America by those of Puritan stock who had a high regard for scholarship and the intellectual study of both theology and creation, the heirs of the Second Great Awakening have exchanged intellect for feeling in exactly the same way as did the developing liberalism. When Pentecostalism came on the scene beginning in 1906, it pushed the envelope of anti-intellectualism to the point that you had to "check your brains as the door" when you entered church. To this day as a tradition, it still decries formal study and questioning as damaging to faith.
In the late nineteenth century and continuing through the 20th century we have withdrawn from American society which was founded on Christian/biblical ideals and principles (although many of the founding fathers were either deists or unorthodox they still shared a Christian worldview) and turned the seats of power over to secularism.
The Enlightenment, (c. 1650- 1800) made reason as opposed to divine revelation the final arbiter of truth. Through the 19th century, this assumption increasingly transformed all Western society. By the early 20th century, this presupposition was seen not only in society but also in a large part of the Church. Fundamentalism arose in opposition to this shift. The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversies of the first three decades of the twentieth century saw mainstream denominations capitulate to the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) and abandon their historic orthodox moorings with reference to the sinfulness of man, and the person and work of Christ. and even God as trinity. From a cultural perspective, the Scopes Trial (1925) served to nail the lid on the coffin of historic conservative Protestant Christianity in America.
In the wake of this defeat, the Fundamentalists withdrew from society as a whole and became inwardly focused, anti-intellectual, and other worldly--focusing on the imminent expectation of the rapture and using this as an excuse not to act as salt and light in society, claiming that to do so was like polishing brass on a sinking ship ("It's all going to burn anyway").
Modern evangelicalism was born in the late 1940's when Carl Henry published The Uneasy Conscience of Modern Fundamentalism. Henry advocated a departure from the "Come out from among them" mentality of fundamentalism and a re-engagement with culture and the life of the mind. At that time in our history, the term "American Evangelical Scholar" was an oxymoron. To be an Evangelical was to be anti-intellectual. On an intellectual level, this re-engagement has met with considerable success. Although it took about a half a century, true Evangelical Scholarship is now a reality.
However, on the popular level the engagement with culture has been something close to disaster.Theologically and intellectually unequipped to deal with the change in worldview, Evangelicalism capitulated to cultural values and lost its distinction from “the world.” It adopted the very same type of political aspirations and tactics that a generation previously it had decried in Liberal Christianity. Evangelicalism identified itself with conservative (largely Republican) politics and became just another special interest group on the horizon that wanted a seat at the political table.
Over the past two generations, we have become so immersed in our national culture that our lifestyle is indistinguishable from that of the non-Christian and secular society. The divorce rate among Evangelicals in the country is at a level that corresponds to that of society as a whole. In the Bible Belt, it is even greater than the divorce rate of the surrounding culture.
We as a movement decry abortion, yet about 40% of the abortions performed in the US are performed on self-proclaimed evangelical women. It is easier for these women to commit what they believe to be murder than to live with the shame and ostracism of the community that was supposed to love them. We, as a group, have lost our moral authority to speak on this issue.
The ethical reputation of evangelicals in business is so notorious as to make the term Evangelical Ethics an oxymoron. Many Christians let alone non-Christians will not do business with those who make public their evangelical commitment.
Twenty years ago when I was on the Student Life committee at a small Christian College we saw the same behavior among our students (promiscuity, abortion, alcohol abuse and drug abuse and homosexuality) that was prevalent among the broader society. (This was one of the school’s dirty little secrets that it tried not to let be known to the constituency for fear of harm to the college’s image.) What I saw was that in many cases parents who had failed to pass on the faith to their children sent them to a Christian college to make up for their failure.
In 1986 Francis Schaeffer published The Great Evangelical Disaster, addressing the question of the church’s abdication of its responsibility to truth. Ten years later in 1996 Mike Regele and Mark Schultz published The Death of the Church in which they argued, based on generational analysis, cultural trends and several other factors, that within a 20-40 year time frame the Church in America would look like the church in Europe—small, and marginalized within a sea of secularism. Michael Spenser’s article in the Christian Science Monitor echoes these same themes, but from some additional perspectives.
In our tradition, we have been committed to evangelism, but we have generally viewed evangelism strictly in terms of conversion, i.e. praying to receive Christ as savior. However, the call of the Lord in the Great Commission (Matt. 28: 18-19) is not to MAKE DECISIONS, it is to MAKE DISCIPLES. This I suspect is near the heart of our failure. Forty-five years ago as I entered my teenage years fundamentalists/evangelicals knew and believed the Bible. (Admittedly, some of that belief was shallow and hermeneutically suspect but that is a topic for another discussion.) Today, the knowledge of the Bible in Evangelicalism is abysmal. One noted Evangelical New Testament scholar has observed that while Evangelical Scholarship has never been at a higher point—for the first time in about a century we can go toe to toe with liberal scholarship and hold our own—in the Churches we have entered a new Dark Ages with reference to Bible knowledge. As a theologian, I would argue that in the area of theology the situation is parallel but maybe even more bleak.
A bit over a decade ago, Evangelical pollster and sociologist George Barna concluded based on numerous surveys that nearly 40% of the individuals sitting in the pews in Evangelical Churches do not cognitively know enough theology even to be saved. Salvation was an experience rather than a belief in concrete facts. (I am not suggesting that experience is not involved-but that we by our failure to teach theology and the whole counsel of God, have emptied the faith of content and opened the door for Christians to commit idolatry whereby we create God out of our own desires and experience rather than who He has revealed himself to be.)
To me this is a sign of not only failure but of doom.
The parable of the Sower and the Seeds is telling. It would appear to me that American evangelicalism has become like the rocky soil on which the seed was sown. It rapidly germinates and grows impressively, but withers quickly because there is no root.
The Church as the Church will survive. But I fear that American evangelicalism is spiritually and theologically and intellectually bankrupt, having spent its intellectual capital and failing to heed the warnings of those who saw its headlong rush toward the cliff.
I may be overly pessimistic. But as a student of history I have in history repeatedly seen trends that lead to collapses. It is possible that God will intervene with another Awakening akin to the First Great Awakening. If He does "all bets are off." But given current trends I don't see much cause for optimism for long-term transformation in our tradition.








Reader Comments (7)
Thanks for writing a response...i've sensed there was a problem...but not entirely sure how to analyze the facts.
I couldn't agree more. It's hard to even call myself a neo-Evangelical because we've long lost the evangel. I'm doing my study on Luke-Acts, esp.on the social implication of that gospel. I've come to appreciate how far away we are from the ideal. The only label I can put on myself at this point is "Post-evangelical" (credit to another Post-Evangelical who used this term in conversation) because as a movement, we're dead. All the popular media get about the gospel is that we're "anti" a bunch of stuff including abortion, prop 8 etc. etc. We're a bunch of anti-citizens.
The RC (for whatever faults they have doctrinally) and mainline seem to show
that they see good work as the end to the gospel. Evangelicals see good
works as a means to present the gospel. I think both sides have something to
be gained from, but I'm starting to distance myself from the "means to
present the gospel camp." Seriously, the gospel is too valuable to be
"used" as a "tool" to achieve an end. It is in the good works that we do we
BECOME the witness. Ther'es been too much talking about the wrong things
(eg. Prop 8 etc. etc.) that the message is gone. There's no evangel in
evangelicalism. Ther'es no "Jesus saves" without "from what" in our gospel.
No way. Perhaps sooner or later, there'll be second wave of attack on our position by fellow evangelicals. This is yet another reason why I no longer hold ETS membership. I can't stand what happened to Sanders and Pinnock, not
that I agree with them at all. We don't "do" theoloy. Unforunately, we only do "dogmatics."
Oh, I also forgot to mention ... the words "evangelical", "scholarship" and "integrity" must not be spoken in the same breathe. Otherwise, we're in danger of putting incompatible categories together, Jim.
I'm struck by how much dogma has to do with our trained response as believers....which is followed by a true fear of evangelism. AWANA teaches us to put on the "armor of God"...for what selfish purpose? For whose glory? It only gets worse as young believers enter into High School and College.
Sam's discussion above reminded me of the importance of the work of Bob Sjogren (www.unveilinglory.com) and his "Cat and Dog Theology." Bob's main point is that we've been trained as Christians with an "what's in it for me" mentality (which he equates with cat like behavior) which precludes evangelism. Our outlook should be that of the servant looking out for the pleasure of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ (which Bob Sjogren equates to dog like behavior). I don't know if we need to self-affix a label like "neo" or "post" evangelical. If we just have the perspective of "what pleases the Lord" at the forefront of our thoughts....believers - and thus,the Church - will express themselves/itself in wonderful and surprising ways.
Wow! Excellent summary and analysis. A while ago, I read Fundamentalism and American Culture by George M. Marsden. It was thoroughly eye-opening to me, and I have been looking for the words to explain the subject matter to someone else. You have delineated the development and the problems of fundamentalism/evangelicalism very clearly and succinctly--compared to the 468-page Marsden's book (which, of course, is still a worthwhile read). I will pass this article on to others.
p.s., No, I don't think you're overly pessimistic.
This is perhaps the best critique on Evangelicalism that I have read recently. I have also written on this subject before and echoed Jim's points on several matter. For the very same issues mentioned in this article, I believe there are three books which are most important to transforming evangelicals. The first is "How People Grow." It is an easy-reading book on spiritual growth written by Cloud and Townsend. I think it's important because it demystifies spiritual growth and forces Christians to start using their brains again. The second one is "Christianity Rediscovered" by the late Father Vincent Donovan. The missionary account with the people of Masai (Africa) opens the eyes of those from the west to see salvation as something other than "my relationship with God." The third is "What So Amazing about Grace." Philip Yancey cuts into the core of American spirituality and reverses the legalistic eliticism within evangelicalism. Lastly, I think transformation will take place. In fact, it is already taking place. I see the Emergent Church movement as one of the reactions to the spiritual bankruptcy of evangelicalsim. Other "movements" or reforms will continue to take place. They may come in groups or individuals. Either way, the next generation will look differnt. As a post-evangelical, I don't see the significance of holding on to a terminology like "evangelicals" that belongs to a previous generation. Pietism served its generation. The Pietistic tradition is embeded in many of us but we do not need to claim to be Pietists. (At least I won't.) Jim, thank you for this insightful article. I'd like to see it being translated. Maybe Sam will do it.
I read with interest Jim's blog regarding the demise of Evangelicalism. Without a doubt, I agree with him on many of the core issues:
1. The lack of theologically oriented Christians 2. The degree of biblical illiteracy
3. The assimilation of the Evangelical church into the broader secular culture; a merging in which the culture remains and the church is absorbed.
Growing us as a Pentecostal, I read Jim's comments about the anti-intellectual nature of the movement. Sadly, it was true. Added to that, the emphasis of holiness interpreted as abandoning culture and you have a heady mix of 'us against them' that only accelerated the lessening impact on culture. To this, however, the Pentecostal might counter that no other denomination has made such radical inroads into world evangelism as the Pentecostals - at least in recent history. And I suppose the counter might be the issue Jim points out regarding making decisions or making disciples. And then, once more I suppose the Pentecostal counters that they were vigilant about indigenous church leadership that knew and understood the culture in which they were set. And then I suppose . . . (it goes on and on and on).
The discussion regarding encounter and propositions – knowing Jesus or knowing about Jesus – is a great dialogue because both ‘knowings’ are essential and seemingly part of the tension Jesus discusses in John 5:36-40.
To be sure, many of the critiques leveled at Evangelicalism are valid and need corrective direction initiated by pastors/professors/theologians and congregations. I must say, however, that many of these same charges can be laid at the doors of other expressions of Christianity. While I find no comfort in saying that all of our houses are plagued - I would be careful about finding the speck in the eyes of everyone else before careful analysis and humility about ourselves.
I have had the opportunity to talk to Jim about some of these things, and I find more agreement than disagreement with him. Of course, Jim is willing to let me be wrong on the areas of disagreement! Thank you Jim for our continued discussion – you challenge me and stir the heart and mind.
I also read with interest some of the comments to the blog. In some there seemed to not only be agreement, but a sort of joy in the demise. And even in a comment or two, an elitist sneering at the obvious banality and ignorance of those silly Evangelicals.
I neither hold to the doom of Evangelicals nor sense any joy at the demise of an approach that has benefitted many in their walk in Christ. I see a morphing that holds to the better aspects of Evangelicalism while altering the misplaced practices and philosophies.
Before dancing at the bonfire of Evangelicalism, I just hope all the prognosticators have developed a superior approach (they keep telling us they have) which can embrace the charred survivors they helped ignite.