What has changed most dramatically, I believe, in this last quarter of a
century is that when I first arrived here we were at the end of the post war
period when evangelical faith was being doctrinally framed and today, for
the most part, it is not. Or at least, not obviously so. What shaped the Church
then, far more than it does now, was theological conviction about its character
and purpose. What shapes it now, far more than it did then, is a marketing
ethos. In one sense, this should not be surprising at all. Americans are nothing
if not consumers, consumers of images, of relationships, and of things, You
perhaps will have seen some of these figures that have been assembled in recent
years. We have 7% of the world's population but we consume 33% of the goods
and services. Every year in America, 12 billion catalogues are sent out to
see if some unwary consumers can be attracted. The average child watches 20
thousand advertisements on television every year and on an average day you
should see 1,600 advertisements. Our whole society has been transformed into
a consumer's heaven and we are nothing if not a nation of buyers, thoroughly
at home in, and thoroughly a part of, the life of commerce. We move in and
out of it much like fish do through water. It is in this commerce that we
live and move and have our being. So the Church's willingness to adapt to
the marketing model for thinking about itself really is not remarkable.
But in adapting itself to this culture, the Church, far more than was the
case twenty-five years ago, is having its character, and its purposes, and
the way it functions, defined for it. There's nothing wrong with commerce
per se, but I am going to argue that there is something profoundly wrong in
trading Christ, or in thinking that religion is the commerce of the soul.
Now this adaptation to this kind of culture I see taking place in three very
important ways in the evangelical world.
First, the churches, in larger and larger numbers, are adapting themselves
to felt needs in the congregations much as a business might adapt its product
to a market. In other words, the Church is sanctioning the idea that when
someone comes in its doors it's okay to view that person as a consumer, somebody
who is going to attempt to hitch up a product to their own felt needs. The
products in question, of course, are the activities, the experiences, the
amenities, and the message of the Church. However, what people who are coming
in these church doors today are thinking about, and what they want, is not
primarily personal salvation. What they want is a sense of personal well-being,
however momentary and fragmentary that personal sense of well-being is and
our churches are beginning to cater to this. I have no doubt at all that they
are going to become very successful. Indeed, some are successful already and
they are going to become more successful because marketing in America is what
makes the wheels go around. They are, in other words, simply doing what Pepsi
has done, what self-help groups have done, the auto makers, the makers of
jeans, the makers of movies, and what Madonna herself has done. So why shouldn't
churches do this, somebody might ask? Why shouldn't they want to be successful
in the same way that Pepsi and Madonna are?
The answer is that marketing will produce success but not necessarily the
kind that has much to do with the Kingdom of God. To start with, the analogy
between the business world and the world of Christ's Kingdom is a completely
fallacious analogy. Consumers in the market place are never asked to commit
themselves to the product they are purchasing as a sinner is to the Christ
in whom belief is being invited. Furthermore, consumers in the marketplace
are free to define their needs however they want to and then to hitch up a
product to satisfy those needs, but in the Church the consumer, the sinner,
is not free to define his or her needs exactly as they wish. It is God who
defines our needs and the reason for that is that left to ourselves we would
not understand our needs aright because we are rebels against God. We are
hostile both to God and to His law and cannot be subject to either, Paul tells
us. Now, no person going into the marketplace, going to buy a coffee-pot or
going to buy a garden hose, engages with their innermost being in the way
that we are inviting sinners to do in the Church. The analogy is simply fallacious.
Furthermore, we would be wise to remember that it was the liberal Protestants
who equated cultural success with the Kingdom of God. In their case, they
equated cultural success with the place where the Kingdom of God was coming
into being in high culture. We are wanting to equate marketing success with
the place where the Kingdom of God is coming into being in popular culture.
Our immediate forbearers in the faith, however, those who pioneered evangelical
faith after World War II, resisted this connection between the Kingdom of
God and success. We should be wise if we did the same. For what succeeds in
this world is not necessarily what is true or what is right. Indeed, much
that is false and decadent succeeds. A church, if it is really true to itself,
is never going to be a worldly success. Its gospel is stupid. Many, we know,
are called but few are chosen. Much seed is sown, but only a little produces
a rich harvest. And when Christ returns is he going to find faith on the face
of the earth? Is it right, then for the Church to prostrate itself obsequiously
before the world in this sorry quest to become a going and successful enterprise?
Is it right to allow sinners, hostile in their nature both to God and His
law, to define how the Church is going to do its business? I think not. So
this is the first place where I see our habits as consumers entering into
our world and defining how we function.
There is a second place that the intrusion of the market ethos into the life
of a church is having a profound effect on the way that the ministry is understood
and practiced. During the last fifty years in particular, the ministry has
become increasingly professionalized. Indeed, it is not coincidental that
during this time, when the social status of ministers has declined, the need
for them to see themselves as professionals has increased. By professionalization,
I simply mean that ministers are being driven to understand themselves as
specialists, those who have special kind of knowledge, the same way lawyers
and physicians and chemists do. In these other professions, specialized knowledge
is used in the pursuit of acquisition and aspiration. That is to say, professionals
typically have careers, projectories of accomplishments for which planning
and maneuvering are indispensable. Where this enters the Church and where
ministers begin to think of themselves in these terms, an ethos results which
I believe is extremely harmful to the real interests of the Church. What happens,
amongst other things, as ministers begin to nourish and pursue private careers
is that the older virtues that were once thought to be essential to the ministry
are replaced by some new virtues. The importance of theology is eclipsed by
the clamor for management skills, biblical preaching by entertaining story-telling,
godly character by engaging personality, and the work of the ministry by the
art of sustaining a career. I believe that these are all unhappy exchanges.
There is a third place where the marketing ethos is entering. The recasting
of religion in terms of the market is giving entrepreneurs a field day. In
1970, apart from the National Association of Evangelicals and Christianity
Today, some mission organizations, some colleges and seminaries, and
the religious presses, there were virtually no evangelical organizations at
all. Today, if you consult Melton's Directory of Religious Organizations
in America, you will be dumbfounded to find that probably between 40%
and 50% of all religious organizations are evangelical and virtually all of
them have started since 1970. They are now outflanking the churches and denominations.
It needs to be said immediately, of course, that many of these organizations
are exercising very fine ministries and many are doing the work that the churches
have not been able to do. At the same time, however, where the market principle
is at work, there you will get entrepreneurs and though entrepreneurs have
great ability in getting things started, it is also the case that sometimes
if entrepreneurs are not careful what they build is also their own personal
fiefdoms. And some of the noise that you hear in the evangelical world today
is the noise of competing personal empires. This is what shocks Christians
who come from the Third World. It shocks them! This was the theme that came
up repeatedly at Lausanne II, the International Congress on World Evangelism
that was held in Manila in 1989. They could not understand how we tolerate
this. Competition fueled by personal ambition destroys the co-operation that
should grow from our common ownership by Christ. "It is a jungle out there,"
we say of the corporate world. It is also a jungle out there in the evangelical
world.
So, let me sum up. The market, as I understand it, is affecting both the
internal ethos in the Church and its external organization. Internally, it
is inclining us to think of sinners as consumer and it is driving ministers
to think of themselves as professionals who have personal careers to nourish,
so they are not slow to pick up their belongings and take to the road to find
better opportunities. And the market is changing the external structures of
evangelicalism, most obviously by encouraging us to think that religion provides
us with a field of opportunity. As significant as these things are, however,
they are just the surface changes and it is what lies beneath this that is
of rather more interest to me.
Changes Below the Surface
In 1993 a very interesting study was done which revisited George Gallup's
figure of 32% of adult Americans who claim to be reborn. What this study did
was to add just a few modest tokens of commitment as additional tests. In
addition to asking, "Are you born again?," they also asked, "Do you go to
church with some regularity, do you pray with some regularity, and do you
have some minimal structure of formal Christian belief? When those tests were
added, the figure of 32% dropped to 8%. And if we were to probe just a little
bit more, and if we were to ask: first, "Are your regenerate?"; second, "Do
you have a sufficiently cogent world view to make a difference in society?"
and third, "Do you have a sufficiently formed Christian character to want
to do so?", based on some ongoing research I have seen, my guess is that the
figure may be no more than 1% or 2%. What this means, is that we may have
been living in a fool's paradise. When Gallup produced his figures in the
1970's and has repeated them every year ever since, it seemed like evangelicals
were on a roll with such wide popular support and with churches that were
growing. It looked as though we were on the verge of sweeping all of our religious
and cultural opponents before us. That was why these figures stirred such
alarm in the secular media, why they created some heartburn in the mainline
Protestant denominations, and why they produced just a little power-mongering
amongst evangelicals. But it has turned out to be an optical illusion. The
reality that we have to face today is that we have produced a plague of nominal
evangelicalism which is as trite and superficial as anything we have seen
in Catholic Europe.
Now, why is this? Well, I would like to suggest that it begins with the crumbling
of our theological character. I have spoken of this in my book , No Place
for Truth, in terms of the "disappearance of theology." It is not that
theological beliefs are denied, but that they have little cash value. They
don't matter. I likened the situation to that of a child who is in a home
but who is ignored. It is not that the child has been abducted; the child
is there. The child is in the home, but has no legitimate place in the family.
And, again, research which I have had conducted strongly points to the fact
that where this kind of theological character is crumbling, there the centrality
of God is disappearing. God now come to rest lightly and inconsequentially
upon the Church. This, however, is just our own private evangelical version
of what we see more generally in the culture. In the broader culture we learn
that 91% of people say that God is very important to them but 66% go on to
say that they do not believe in moral absolute truth. So God rest inconsequentially
upon their lives.
An evangelical faith that is not passionate about truth and righteousness
is a faith which is a lost cause. All that it will then be living for is simply
its own organizational preservation. Last century William James saw this same
sort of mind set at work. The entire modern deification of survival, he said,
"with the denial of any semblance of excellence in what survived, except the
capacity for more survival still, is surely the strangest intellectual stopping
place ever." Stanley Fish, the radical deconstructionist, in his latest book
says that since there is no such thing as truth, all that we have left is
power, politics, and persuasion. Given his premise, he is right and I can
tell you that if we do not recover our theological character and our sense
of truth, in the same way, all that we are going to have left is power, politics,
and persuasion. Those will be the only means we will be left for survival.
If this is an accurate analysis, where are we going to start in finding some
new directions?
In a recent book, The Churching of America: Winners and Losers in the
Religious Economy, Fink and Stark developed an interesting thesis. Just
as there is commercial economy, they say, so there is a religious economy.
That is to say, there are cultural circumstances which encourage the success
of some religious movements and discourage the success of others. I think
that they are right. However, there is one small section of that book that
seems to have been overlooked. What they say here is that regardless of how
much success the culture bestows upon a religious movement, it will never
survive long term unless it has what they call, "a vivid other worldliness."
Without looking at evangelicals directly, they have in actual fact put their
finger on our Achilles heel, for amidst all of the abundance in our world,
all of the accoutrements that go with a successful movement, a vivid other
worldliness is often conspicuous by its absence. If we cannot reverse ourselves
at this point, we are headed towards the oblivion of irrelevance before God.
So how are we going to recover a vivid other worldliness? Perhaps it consists
in many things, but I single out just two which I think are central.
The Lost Word
First, we must recover the lost Word of God. The problem is not, of course,
that the Bible itself has disappeared. There are, in fact enough Bibles in
America to put one in every home. No, the problem is that we are not hearing
the Word of God. It does not rest consequentially upon us. It does not cut.
And it is surely one of the great ironies of our time that in the 1970's and
80's so much of our effort was put into defining inspiration and looking at
what were the best words to express and protect it. And while all of that
work was going on, unnoticed by us, the Church was quietly, unhitching itself
from the truth of Scripture in practice. Biblical inspiration was affirmed
but its consequences were not worked out for our preaching, our techniques
for growing the Church, our techniques for healing our own fractured selves.
These all happened largely without the use of Scripture. It is as if we think
that while the Bible is inspired, it is nevertheless inadequate to the tasks
of sustaining and nourishing the twentieth-century! The result of this divine
myopia is that he has left us with something that is inadequate to the great
challenges that we face today.
If we do no recover the sufficiency of the Word of God in our time, if we
do not relearn what it means to be sustained by it, nourished by it, disciplined
by it, and unless our preachers find the courage again to preach its truth,
to allow their sermons to be defined by its truth, we will lose our right
to call ourselves Protestants, we will lose our capacity to be the people
of God, and we will set ourselves on a path that leads right into the old
discredited liberal Protestantism. We have to recover a vivid other worldliness
by making ourselves once again captives to the truth of God regardless of
the cultural consequences. So that is the first thing.
The Lost Vision
Second, it will be impossible to recover a vivid other worldliness without
recovering a fresh vision of God as holy. We, today, are actually on the verge
of a fresh theological discovery of a very different kind. It is that God
is centrally love and that he is only peripherally and remotely holy. And
in so doing we are on the verge of standing Scripture on its head. No, the
holiness of God is not peripheral. It is central, and without this holiness
our faith loses its meaning entirely. As P.T. Forsyth declared a century ago,
"sin is but the defiance of God's holiness, grace is but its action upon sin,
the cross is but its victory, and faith is but its worship." And so without
a compelling vision of the holiness of God, worship inevitably loses its awe,
the truth of God's Word loses its interest, obedience loses its virtue, and
the Church loses its moral authority. And it is precisely here that modernity,
which is more or less synonymous with "the world" in the New Testament, has
made its deepest intrusion into the life of the Church. Modernity has rearranged
our appetites.
Because of our therapeutic culture, we favor relational matters over those
that are moral, the consequence of which is that God's holiness is pushed
into the background and his love is brought into the foreground. Mysticism
then flourishes and cognitive conviction retreats. Self-surrender is devalued
and self-fulfillment is prized. Preoccupation with the character fades and
fascination with personality and self-image advance. The God in whom love
has replaced wrath produces a Christianity that is appealing for its civility,
but one that has no serious Word for a world which is racked by evil. It is
a form of belief that is sympathetic but not searching, that lends its ear
but not its revelation of the Holy One. Without the holiness of God, sin is
just failure -- but not failure before God! It is failure without the presumption
of guilt, without retribution, indeed without any serious moral meaning at
all. And without the holiness of God, grace is no longer grace. It is not
grace from God, grace from the God who, against his own holy nature, has reconciled
sinners to himself in Christ. And without justification there is no gospel
and without the gospel, there is no Christianity. So if we lose sight of the
holiness of God, we lose the right to call ourselves Protestants in any recognizably
historical sense.
Until this is seen afresh, until it enters the very innermost fibers of our
being, our virtue is going to be without seriousness, our believing without
gravity, our practice without moral pungency, our worship without joyful seriousness,
and our preaching without power. And without these virtues, these virtues
of an historic Protestant faith, the Church today is simply going to become
just one more special interest in a world that is awash with special interests.
Modernity will not have its power to rearrange our inner lives destroyed.
What is most lost is what most needs to be recovered. It is the unsettling,
disconcerting, moral presence of God in our midst. He can no longer be the
junior partner in our religious enterprises and he can never be just an ornamental
decoration upon our Church life. It is because God now rests so inconsequentially
upon the Church that the Church is free to plot and to devise its success
in its own way. That is why so many of our forbearers in the faith would scarcely
even recognize us as their children today. Today, the evangelical world is
bleeding. We have lived off the accumulated capital of those who worked so
hard in post-War years and we have not renewed it. Fifty-one years ago, Harold
John Ockenga addressed the National Association of Evangelicals when it was
very much in its infancy. He spoke of the crisis in Western civilization and
of the responsibilities evangelicals had. Let me quote from his address: "This
nation in its maturity," he said, "is passing through a crisis which is enmeshing
western civilization. Confusion exists on every hand. We are living in a very
difficult and bewildering time, but few people realize what tremendous change
we are undergoing." And he continued, "The hour has arrived when the people
of this nation must think deeply or be damned. We must recognize that we are
standing at the crossroads and that there are only two ways that lie open
before us. One is the road of the rescue of Western civilization by a re-emphasis
on the revival of evangelical Christianity. The other is a return to the dark
ages of heathendom, which powerful force is emerging in every phase of our
lives today." Those were prophetic words and if I am not mistaken, we, today,
despite all of our prosperity, have little left of what it takes to impact
our secular world. That is the irony of our success!
And so may God give us the willingness to repent where we must and may he
give us again the desire to think large thoughts of him and his truth. And
may he enable us to disengage our faith from the culture in order that we
might freshly re-engage the culture out of a passionate concern for truth
and righteousness. This is a time when we can seek again the grace of God
to these ends. Let us seek his grace so that the evangelicalism that we leave
behind, that which the coming generation sees, is one that is filled with
the excellence of the knowledge of God. Amen.