“We are on the verge—within 10 years—of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.”
I did not write this. It comes from my friend Michael Spencer in his recently published article in the Christian Science Monitor. It is the introductory statement to a wonderfully provocative argument concerning, what Michael believes to be the coming fall of Evangelicalism.
While Michael and I share many of the same concerns (in fact, when I read his thoughts on this subject I wonder if we were not separated at birth), I am not quite as pessimistic about the future of Evangelicalism as he is.
I will add my contribution to this issue, hoping to give Michael’s propositions support while giving a slightly different perspective.
What is going to happen (Michael’s future “prophetic” vision for Evangelicalism):
Michael believes that “Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants” and that “This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West.” As well, “public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.” He goes on, “Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.”
I will talk about this in a moment. Right now, I want bypass the “what”” and look at the “why?”
In a section entitled “Why this is going to happen?” Michael proceeds to give us the “State of the Nation” of Evangelicalism; seven reasons why Evangelicalism is in its current condition. I want to look at the first four.
1. First, Michael believes that Evangelicals have become too closely identified with the political right. Being identified as such, he believes that “Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.” Michael says that “Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence.”
It is a very sad fact that Evangelicals (taken from the root evangel which means “Gospel”) are almost universally hard pressed to articulate the Gospel in a way that represents the biblical and historic heritage of the message. Without the Gospel, all the social values we can muster amount to nothing. I have said this before: right practice without a foundation is rubbish. We have replaced the Gospel with a message that simply mourns over the statistics of social concerns. Mourning over the sins of our nation and political identification will come. Try as you might to completely separate them, Christians—evangelical Christians—will always support the political party that lines up most faithfully with our values. It is our duty to do so. But these values are not the Gospel. If you can defend these values more than you can the Person and Work of Christ, you have the cart before the horse.
2. Second, Michael says “We Evangelicals have failed to pass on to our young people an orthodox form of faith that can take root and survive the secular onslaught.” Not only have we failed to pass it on, we are at a point where those who are supposed to pass it on simply can’t because they never received it in the first place! We are two, maybe three, generations beyond this ability. We are simply running out of people who are even qualified in any sense to pass on “orthodoxy.” The faith “once for all delivered to the saints” somehow got lost in the mail. Those who suppose they are passing it on are passing on their own orthodoxy which they have created based upon the eternal value of their own opinions. There are not many, especially within Evangelicalism, who can trace the faith beyond their own conversion experience. A faith such as this, has no business surviving. Orthodoxy needs to be resent.
3. Third, Michael believes that “There are three kinds of evangelical churches today: consumer-driven megachurches, dying churches, and new churches whose future is fragile. Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.” I am not quite so pessimistic, but I do think he has his finger on the wrist area. Denominations need to survive, but their reasons for existence need to experience a philosophical overhaul. The divide and territorialism has become a stench for the church and this coming generation will have none of it. Evangelicalism as an idea is supposed to unite Christians of a variety of backgrounds under common essentials. Not only is this not being accomplished in pop-Church today, but it is not even an aspiration. Many don’t even know the name of the umbrella under which they find themselves and, frankly, they don’t seem to care. If the umbrella is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and anti-Obama, then Michael is right . . . we are done for.
4. Michael says, “Despite some very successful developments in the past 25 years, Christian education has not produced a product that can withstand the rising tide of secularism.” If what he means by “product” is the beliefs and understanding of the average Evangelical, I agree. Most people are running scared from even the least threatening attacks from the outside. When they do respond, it amounts to pop and cliche apologetics, which often evidences a gross lack of understanding of the concerns of our generation. We have simply not discipled people in 50 years. We don’t even know what it means to disciple anymore, equating it with accountability groups and small group Purpose Driven Life studies. People need to be taught much more deeply and fundamentally.
Michael gives his evaluation at the end. To sum up, he believes that Evangelicalism is a hopeless cause and that we need to look for new life on new Gospel frontiers. I don’t really follow him here (at least in the way he is communicating). I also believe that CPR can be done as there is still a pulse to Evangelicalism. What Michael describes is pop-Evangelicalism which is defined by the masses and the media. “For they are not all Evangelical who have descended from Evangelical.” I believe that there is still a very strong representation of those who carry the dignity of what it truly means to be Evangelical.
What Do We Need to Do? My Evangelical Bailout Package:
- We need to reform. There has to be stronger accountability from the top down and from the bottom up. The identity crisis that Evangelicals are going through can come to an end. I think that there needs to be some strong leadership that steps up and is ecumenically minded enough to include all those who proclaim the evangel, but wise enough to know where and when to draw lines of demarcation. This can start right now.
- We need to be our own spokespeople. We cannot let the media define us. People such as James Dobson can keep applying the Gospel to social issues with great passion, but they need to be careful to not let the media manipulate the identity of Christianity with their narrower concerns (as important as many of us think they are). This can start right now.
- People simply need to be discipled. Keep offering the Every Man’s Battle book studies and provide a contemporary service at 12pm. I don’t care. What I do care about is that we create a real and serious assumption that being a Christian presupposes a belief and identity with the historic Christian faith. Call it catechism, call it membership, call it whatever, but when people trust Christ they need to know and understand the faith they have accepted. There is content, assent, and trust to our faith. If people don’t like history, if people don’t like theology, if they are dyslexic, or ADD, I don’t care. There is no excuse for us birthing people and setting them out on the streets, ignorant as newborns. The Christian faith must be taken more seriously. Yes, this will mean less people—get used to it. This can start right now.
- There needs to be a better ordination process within Evangelicalism. When any Joel, Benny, Brian, or Joyce can claim to be an Evangelical without qualification, we know that we have lost our identity. This ordination does not have to come from a specific united Evangelical institution, but from an assumed basis built upon the traditions we represent. This can start right now.
- Denominations and traditions need to recognize the centrality of the Person and Work of Christ. Baptists, Presbytarians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminian, Reformed, Dispensational, and all other Protestant denominations and traditions need to identify with a revived Evangelical center all the while keeping their distinctives. We need an anchor, not boundaries. Church and denominational territorialism needs to come to an end. I have seen situations where most of the pastors in a city did not know each other and had never met. Some of them were right across the street from each other! Why all the peeing on trees? This is tragic. This represents a massive loss in focus on the evangel and is completely contrary to the spirit of Evangelicalism. There needs to be much more unity in our diversity. This can start right now.
- There needs to be more focus on semi-official Evangelical para-Evangelical ministries. It would be the responsibility of these ministries to provide public relations support (including press releases), education, and church and school “approval” boards that accept applications to be included in a sort of “society of historic Evangelical churches and schools.” We already have these to some degree as separate organizations, but they don’t have much public light or legitimacy. This can start right now.
- We need to quit being so scared of becoming institutionalized. If we follow these principles, there are plenty of measures and check-and-balances that can be put into place which would prevent institutionalization and ensure that we still get things done. This can start right now.
This is my Evangelical Bailout Package. I think we can get it done. It can start right now.
What do you think? Is Evangelicalism hopeless?
67 replies to "My Evangelical Bailout Package"
[…] C. Michael Patton, Parchment and Pen: “I am not quite as pessimistic about the future of Evangelicalism as he is.” […]
is that site in Latin? I tried to read it and all I could see was Christian Science Monitor…sorry, I don’t have the Latin on Rosetta Stone yet…lol
Rick,
I recognize your point, certainly. I noted that I myself was in that category for a long time — Bible college and seminary educated, worked under Walter Martin and eventually managed the apologetics/writing arm of his CRI in 1980, and worked fairly closely with him personally. Then studied much deeper for a number of years, including PhD work.
I respect the intelligence and sincerity of the many very bright, well-researched people I know personally and know of who are still orthodox. There are a number of reasons why different intelligent people can look at the same basic body of evidence and come to different conclusions. They often have to do with inner issues of spiritual experiences, social connetions, making a living, and various practically or emotionally-influenced matters. It also has to do with just WHERE one looks and HOW one investigates claims–what seems significant or not, who is accepted as an authority on a given topic or weighed against opposing authorities, how one constructs the logic, etc.
Given all that, I do find that if one is able to step back from the many things that are assumed about the Gospels (them particularly, though the overall issues pertain to any and all parts of the Bible), that it is evident even on fairly cursory reading of all the Gospels in comparison, and Acts in relation to Paul, etc., that much of the story was created for theological purposes. It’s just so hard to step back and look at it all fresh. So even “objective” scholars generally get their expectations confirmed. (I know I may be sounding “postmodern,” but there is much, apparently, in that methodology and perspective I don’t agree with — I don’t read the theorists directly.) And virtually no one can or even attempts to come to the NT (or the whole Bible) fresh and untaught, with no bias, and tries to decipher if it is historical, reliable “eyewitness testimony,” or more literarily created for theological reasons, etc.
Now, another factor is that the arguments can get pretty sophisticated; the issues are complex. It is possible to create a good-sounding case by approaching the evidence from certain angles, and citing certain authorities. A case in point would be Strobel’s “The Case for Christ,” which I read twice, carefully. The way he structures his argument, often even representing opposing views fairly well (though not completely enough) does make a case that is quite persuasive, and probably adequate for a lot of people who do not have depth knowledge of the issues involved or highly analytical minds.
While he makes no claim to be a biblical scholar himself, Strobel certainly is a very informed person who took a lot of time to research and interview experts. But there are some reasons his case falls short of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but rather is highly doubtful. I can’t detail them all here, but one is that he does NOT directly interview scholars (and there are PLENTY of them) who take significantly different positions from his carefully chosen experts. What he does is not allowed in at least American courts, though he positions his case as a legal-type examination. That is, he alone presents both the case for the “prosecution” and for the “defense.” The book would have a whole different feel, and set of data, if he’d invited a person with the “opposite” or a skeptical view to interview another set of experts, and to also cross-examine his. And of course, vice-versa, also. Would any of us let one lawyer be both our defense counsel AND the prosecutor?
What is also important to point out is the faulty either-or situations we often set up in our minds. E.g., in this situation, say a person does not believe the Gospels were even meant to be recordings of history, nor that they give adequate evidence for Jesus’ physical resurrection, nor that they present a “God-given” (now-orthodox) theological interpretation of that if it DID happen. (It could have, but still be open to differing interpretations, as it is clear the “atonement” theory of the crucifixion emerged as only one of various understandings, in Scripture and the early Church, for THAT event, which likely DID happen, in some manner). So if one sees no reason to believe in Jesus’ physical resurrection (or maybe any kind differing from whatever happens to any person, for the commentor who remarked about that), it does not mean they have to throw out the entire teachings of Jesus.
Yes, it will undermine the integral structure of orthodox theology, and that I believe is the very reason Emergents as open/progressive as even McLaren purposely avoid dealing directly, in detail, with issues of historicity in the NT…. He is well-studied and “knows too much.” To do so would open more “cans of worms” than he and his colleagues are willing to deal with, at least so far. They seem to much want to stay tied to orthodoxy/Evangelicalism. (And I don’t think drifting over to capital “O” Orthodoxy would be much of a solution.)
Dear Howard,
What do you think Walter Martin would think about in regards to your theological-spiritual journey since leaving CRI and with regards to where you are now theologically and spiritually?
Michael,
Of all your solutions you mentioned, I’d say that #5 bears the central merit:
“Denominations and traditions need to recognize the centrality of the Person and Work of Christ. Baptists, Presbytarians, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminian, Reformed, Dispensational, and all other Protestant denominations and traditions need to identify with a revived Evangelical center all the while keeping their distinctives. We need an anchor, not boundaries. Church and denominational territorialism needs to come to an end. I have seen situations where most of the pastors in a city did not know each other and had never met. Some of them were right across the street from each other! Why all the peeing on trees? This is tragic. This represents a massive loss in focus on the evangel and is completely contrary to the spirit of Evangelicalism. There needs to be much more unity in our diversity. This can start right now.”
I think the central problem is a lack of commitment to focus of Christ. I am afraid that we have made Christianity (evangelical) about a whole of things that have deterred from the work and person of Christ. We’ve used Christ as a springboard to promote gifting, programs, organizational structure and social agendas. We’ve put things out there and said “this is Christ” when in fact it has been short-sighted and inwardly focused attempts to make Him who we think He should be and His church, what we think it should be. In short, we’ve made evangelicalism much about us and our needs than Him being our need. When the programs or agendas stop working, people are turned off.
I do agree with serious discipleship, as you know. I’m afraid that many have rejected rigorous Christian education because of mistakenly believing that it’s goal is to produce more knowledgeable Christians. Rather the goal of education is to produce better Christians. It is a means to an end, and the end is our commitment to Christ, His church and His agenda and that, I believe is what is really lacking. I think in many ways we have tried to apply formulas that have masqueraded as education but have presented a veneer of Christian activity without the foundational substance. We do have to understand the foundation of what we are supposed to be about that will produce a Spirit induced outflow of activity that will indeed point to Christ. That does start with education about our faith.
But here too, I wonder if the doctrinal splintering has caused irreparable damage. Again, I think this is where education comes into play to understand what is at the heart of disputes, an understanding of historical development. And many may have in ignorance turned away because of what seems like fracturing but in reality is inwardly focused biblical interpretation and denominational allegiance that makes what is supposed to look like the body of Christ, a bunch of spoiled, postering children who don’t get their way.
[…] guy makes comments on the first guy’s thoughts. Are churches of Christ in the same ark? What do you think of […]
“We’ve used Christ as a springboard to promote gifting, programs, organizational structure and social agendas. We’ve put things out there and said “this is Christ” when in fact it has been short-sighted and inwardly focused attempts to make Him who we think He should be and His church, what we think it should be. In short, we’ve made evangelicalism much about us and our needs than Him being our need. When the programs or agendas stop working, people are turned off.”
These are very true words! I know because, candidly, I find myself in such a situation. While programs and organizational structure are “centralized”, sadly, Christ himself is “peripheralized”. To borrow an analogy from another source, I think we’re now riding on a ‘tiger’, and we’re afraid to get off because we may be ‘eaten’. Survival becomes our focus, and Christ is used!
“much of the story was created for theological purposes”
I think everyone can stand in perfect unanimity in saying that the Gospels were created for theological purposes.
[…] Michael Spencer on the “coming evangelical collapse.” Michael Patton responds with an evangelical bailout package. […]
Amen, Brother Patton. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I appreciate
your insight and this blog very much.
Blessings,
Dr. P aul W. Foltz
The intellectual point is…do you know Jesus better because you have a Phd rather than someone who does not? Again, that is being respectors of persons because now the definition has turned to some people believing they know it all about God, when they really know nothing. Jesus is supposed to be in a working relationship within us and to say you can only know Him from the more you study Him in an educational setting? Did I have to go to wife school to get a Phd to learn how to live with my husband?
No, our priorities in the church have changed. No longer do we seek after the communication with Jesus through intimate prayer, we look for definitions in books. We read Spurgeon and all those others an borrow quotes from them. Tell me today what Jesus said to you today, I love to hear good revelations people have received.
I am in the TTP program for a reason, and that is to learn how to speak to other people of other faiths who by the way also study our Bible. I study about Islam and Judaism and all other religions, not so I can be like them but so that I can know what they believe.
Our religion is unique, but will only be unique if we get back to the basics and that is….relationship over intellect…get back to that.
Don’t get me wrong, I do endorse religious education, it is important for us to study to rightly divide the Word of God, but once you divided it, how do you use it? And without God anyway, you aren’t going to get understanding at all. To borrow from Psalm 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly…
THE KNOWLEDGE 0F CHRIST COMES ONLY BY REVELATION-Luke 10;22-24; Matthew 11;24-29.
Salvation is by Revelation. It is knowing and walking with Christ every day.
[…] Patton over at Parchment and Pen seems less pessemistic. He offer suggestions in his bailout package. Here are a couple of the more important […]
Kara Kittle,
Love that question !!
“do you know Jesus better because you have a Phd rather than someone who does not ?”
Absolutely not ! And I have the perfect example in my home ! Wy wife is a very long standing Christian, with an exceptionally strong faith. I call her a “Mark 10:15 believer”.
I am a way younger Christian, from Catholic background, who is a continuous seeker.
She loves straight from the heart. I need to reason through things. We’re different and it has, trust me, created some tension now that I’m in the TTP classes.
So who knows Jesus better ? Neither. We both love Him, both accept Him and are both extremely blessed. But we do come from a different angle and background. And THAT is what makes up a Church (1Cor 12:12-26). Is the hand better than the eye ? Or the foot better than the head ? Paul foresaw this…
For those that are called to study, learn, be involved in apologetics, do it to the best of the “Talents” the Lord has bestowed on you. For those that are called to love, serve, comfort… ditto 😉
In Him
Michael L.
Ty. You know something…when I heard the word apologetic…I thought, what am I apologizing for to them? LOL. I have come a long way since then. My favorite teacher is Ravi Zacharias. I listen to him when I can. But at least I understand there is more to Jesus than what some guy on tv or the radio is telling us. We can open the Bible and learn for ourselves. Not that I am against it mind you, bless God that it is there for people who might not other wise pick up a Bible.
Bless you and your wife both.
[…] An Evangelical Bailout Package by C. Michael Patton […]
[…] I regularly frequent have referred to iMonk’s articles in their most recent posts – Parchment & Pen and Christians In […]