The late Michael Spencer, who touched the lives of so many around the world through his blog, The Internet Monk, before
cancer took him this spring, had plied his prophetic powers to the coming collapse of evangelicalism. In an article in the Christian Science Monitor that appears to be from March of this year, he outlines why this collapse is coming and what things will look like on the other side.
I would love to have some discussion here from folks of different social settings responding to his dire predictions. If you’re an evangelical, does his assessment ring true to you? What about you post-evangelicals looking at things in the rear-view mirror? Does anyone from a Roman Catholic standpoint have an outsider’s opinion to throw in the ring? Any of my mainline Protestant readers have two cents to chip in?
Spencer’s basic premise was that evangelicalism was able to thrive in the hothouse that was the Protestant 20th century, but that it does not have the assets to survive in the post-Christian (and increasingly hostile-to-Christianity) 21st century.
Perhaps to get the ball rolling, I share two of Spencer’s observations/concerns.
First, (evangelical) Christianity is, in fact, viewed by all but (evangelical) Christians as the enemy of the common good. We have not figured out how to conduct ourselves in the public arena (or our own in-house affairs, for that matter) in such a way that people see us as the champions of liberty, justice, and equality. That is not our voice. We do not, in our participation in the public square, step forward with the deep conviction that we are to love our neighbor as ourselves and do unto others as we would have done to us. This is a big problem, perhaps the most important problem that Christians need to address with respect to our participation in national issues.
Second, Spencer has several points that boil down to this: evangelicalism is theologically and intellectually vacuous. There are some clear indications that, as a general assessment of what/how our churches are doing, this is correct. The recent publications about the state of our youth with respect to their faith is clear evidence that we are not raising up theologically or biblically well-informed followers of Jesus.
It might be that points 1 and 2 are related. Just a thought.
And yet, I don’t think his dire predictions are on track. At least, I think it will take a lot longer than a decade for evangelicalism to come crashing down. I also have a lot of hope for various denominations because people my age who are asking the hard questions are staying where they are as often as they are leaving. So yes, there will be new groups, “small bands working to rescue” through renewal. And, I think these will have a long-term stabilizing effect if they don’t get run off by the old guard.
What do you think?
While I would wholeheartedly agree with Spencer’s observations, I’m simultaneously both more optimisitic and more pessimistic. I think this unhealthy brand of evangelicalism will go on riding a popular wave of religious and ideological demagoguery, while a more healthy form will keep on emerging. The signs of both are everywhere. Seems like evangelicalism is bifurcating.
I’m with Rance. There will be remnants of the Old Guard and their institutions for some time to come. They have built comfortable bunkers that will probably last for more than ten years. But at the same time, there is something new and unpredictable emerging that will look nothing like the Old Guard, yet have distinctively evangelical markings.
I think this depends on definitions–and definining “evangelical” has been notoriously difficult. If we mean, as the word suggests, “gospel centered” Protestantism, the sky is not falling. If we mean a form of Christianity shaped by the legacies of the Reformation, the Great Awakening and 2nd Awakening, an evangelistic and missionary zeal along with some concern for orthodoxy, that will probably survive. If we mean the capital E “Evangelical” subculture of late 20th C. America–particularly as this gave rise to the Religious Right–it’s doomed, however much, it may rally electoral troops for a cycle or so. It’s losing its children too fast–and is only known by what it hates–not the Christ it supposedly loves.
If by “evangelical,” we mean what Barth did when he wrote, Evangelical Theology, or what Helmut Thielicke did when he wrote his dogmatics, The Evangelical Faith then the sky is not falling. But the kind of Christianity represented by Franklin Graham’s Islamaphobia, Al Mohler’s hyper-scholastic Calvinism, by the late Jerry Falwell, or by Pat Robertson is doomed.
Well, I wish I agreed with you a bit more, Michael. It seems to me that there is a bright future for the angry conservative Reformed types. That kind of passion and the strength of the system together form a powerful force that will always appeal to people. It’s too empowering, and has too much potential to create the idea that one is on the side of God when possessing that power, to pass quickly from the scene.
Someone commented on my FB page that the article is essentially saying, “Things change.” There might be something to that!
M. M-W.,
Without using the words, you seem to be distinguishing “evangelical” from “conservative”. Conservatism in the church is little other than Liberalism in the opposite direction. It’s culturally determined, so its nature and existence are vulnerable to changes in culture. Hyper-scholastic Calvinism has a kind of intellectual appeal, just as the “social gospel” of the early 20th century. But unless intellect and compassion are joined to Jesus and to each other, all you have left are social movements and fights over denominations and property.
Do remember that evangelical Christianity isn’t just an American thing. For instance, there’s at least 50 million of them in China.
Fair enough. He seemed to be talking about the American instantiation, though. What difference do yo use the 50 million making for how we think about Evangelicalism in the future? Do you think the explosion of American Evangelicalism will give them more voice? Or that the quieting of our own will tune our ears to hear the voice they already speak with?
For hundreds of years, from perhaps the conversion of Constantine in AD 313, all the way up until the 1950s, our world has been in a state of Christendom. Allow me to explain. It is only in the last sixty years where a post-Christendom ideal has become widespread. Our culture is no longer held stable by the statues of Christ’s Church, but instead has gone into a tailspin of ethics, morality, security, and image. The church has lost its position as the center of attention in society, and increasingly occupies the sidelines and the afterthoughts of culture. And so we, the Church, find ourselves in a flux of change, or decline to be specific.
Its only natural to see a decline in evangelicalism as well. Simply put, the, “shut up, go to church, and believe in God!” parenting style has lost its place as a standard in society. One of the contributing factors that many point to, but I believe to take center stage is a movement away from marriage being something that lasts. Pre-dating 1950, church was a family affair. Children were raised by their parents to be church goers. Jesus says he stands at the door and knocks, but I always say you must be in the room where the door is if you’re going to be exposed to Christ opening the door. As divorce has increased, there is no longer an abundance of “the American family” in church on Sunday. That, combined with an increase in college education among men and women in the last 60 years (and a corresponding average intelligence level that society has never seen) makes belief in God without foundation in much of societies life. The problem really is systematic in that sense, to me.
I think, then, Dan, that your assessment of the climate is more or less on par with Michael Spencer’s. The further question: do you think that evangelicalism has begun to retool what it does, and what it expects of its people such that Christianity will be compelling to people in the post-Christian culture who weren’t raised in church, who have a world that works without God, read Ayn Rand, etc.?
I think there is a undefined need to retool that many in church leadership are growing aware of. That may be part of the reason that I’m on the path towards church leadership that I am: read, I want to be an agent of change in the Church for this generation and the next to follow. In a post-Christian culture, the idea that something besides Jesus & the Gospel are compelling is going to rise in some circles where there is sentiment of the evangelical era, while in circles where the only Gospel a person has ever known is themselves may dictate a new approach to evangelism is necessary. What that is, I’m unsure of. Some think its marketing. Some think its consumerism. Some think its other things….whatever. I just know the numbers aren’t trending in a positive manner with the plan that is currently in place.
The one exception to what I just said seems to be the social justice movement. Across the board, people seem to care more for others who are less fortunate today than they did 60 years ago (or even 20?) – regardless of their belief in Christ. Whether or not that eventually contributes and translates as people coming to know Jesus as Messiah is where there is weakness, to me. Jesus saved sinners from sins before he healed what ailed them physically. It seems like the priority has shifted subconsciously. Its as though some want to enact the Kingdom of God on earth without knowing who the King is almost.
Hi Daniel,
I have been following your blog ever since I heard your commencement speech at this years Fuller graduation in Menlo Park. Just wanted to say … thanks for your voice. A brief account of my own journey through the evangelical landscape was published today on Religion Dispatches. Thought you might be interested.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/3245/the_wandering_evangelical/
Peace of Christ,
Philip Majorins
Phil, this is Isaac from Briecrest, Joel’s friend. He just sent me the link to your article. Really appreciated it. I was going to post it here and then there you were!
Anyways, let me second Phil’s link.
Well this blog post has sent me on an interesting mini-journey. One of the nuggets I dug up was this post http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/07/are-christians-really-2.html
Interesting. Sounds like an interesting book. pvk