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.
Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.
This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.
“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. Ironically, the billions of dollars we’ve spent on youth ministers, Christian music, publishing, and media has produced a culture of young Christians who know next to nothing about their own faith except how they feel about it. Our young people have deep beliefs about the culture war, but do not know why they should obey scripture, the essentials of theology, or the experience of spiritual discipline and community. Coming generations of Christians are going to be monumentally ignorant and unprepared for culture-wide pressures. ”
Perhaps this above all is the most condemning statement, and probably holds true for all of Western Christianity; and will we not be held accountable in the end. I fear for our children and grandchildren.
T
I think the achilles heal of protestantism of all varieties is that it is too closely indentified with the ‘individual’ and ‘feelings’ and therefore to culture.
IMO a new wave of Christian persecution is coming and the Catholic church will become the bedrock for orthodoxy, though it too will reduce enormously.
In many ways it will be a seperating of the goats, who just enjoyed religion and the sheep, who embraced the Gospel.
No bad thing perhaps?
Very insightful. This agrees with a lot of what I’ve been seeing in urban contexts and various evangelical ministries over the past 5 years.
Most of them seem to know, consciously or subconsciously, that they have lost the younger generation and need to retool.
Thanks to Michael Spencer for stating this in a way that gets outside of the Evangelical box.
#2, I would agree with you (I think). I’m not sure the return will be to the Roman Catholic Church (though I’m not sure that is what you have said); however, I do indeed believe there will be a movement toward evangelical catholicism in Christianity. It seems as though a great deal of the future leaders I see around me in their 20s and 30s are coming from Evangelical backgrounds and moving in very catholic directions.
In general I think the numbers in Churches are going to drop off drastically across the board in my generation (20s, early 30s) but the renewal and those staying in the Church appear to quite catholic in theology and litugical preferences. I can only imagine we will form our parishioners in this way.
I should also note that the RC in the U.S. is going to experience something similar having lost a good bit of one generation due to scandal and losing the Hispanic immigrants to the Evangelical/Pentecostals.
The mainline Prots are already on life support having drank in too much of their own hubris.
I was very glad to see this show up here on T19. It is a very worthwhile preci’ to read, though I think some of what he writes is quite off the mark.
Having grown up in evangelicalism I have seen it change in a radical way. My current observation is that they are good at teaching but miserably poor at example. I actually think that christians being involved in the political/social realm is a good thing rather than bad. But though the modern evangelical’s great emphisis is on a personal relationship with one’s Savior, they (in worship, for example) generally spend precious little time talking too Him and listening too Him. What kind of a relationship is that?
Don
I encourage you to take a long look at the Orthodox Church, which for more than 2000 years has held fast to sound theology, the scriptures and moral positions that have not changed with the whims of time. It’s amazing to me that the Orthodox Church is often left out of various surveys about Christianity in America. For the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in America website – http://www.goarch.org for more information.
BJ
Personally, I think this piece a tad premature. There appears to be a sea change happening in our American culture–Pres. Obama, the ‘end’ of Iraq War, the economic collapse, etc. There is a huge shift going on which is larger than any one of these issues or persons. Thus the piece rightly taps into the current of change within the Church Universal (catholic and protestant). And if the author is defining evangelical to mean specifically the church culture associated with the religious right, then certainly change is acoming. If on the other hand, the author means to include the evangelical tradition committed to personal conversion and a face-value reading of Scripture, then his pessimism amounts to a lack of confidence in the Gospel. Although I am facing new questions in my ministry, I remain convinced that the evangelical tradition has the flexibility and vitality to respond to the changes in a way that will see the opportunities in the coming generation.
This seems a little dire to me. I am not nor have I ever been an “Evangelical” but I find it hard to swallow that the entire movement is going to collapse within a generation or two. I think it may well shrink in importance and size, but I am just not quite buying it.
At the risk of being trollish, it continually amazes me that Christians bury their heads in the sand about the gradual decline of mainline- and evangelical Christianity. These folks refuse even to consider, let alone acknowledge, an obvious possibility: That the high christology and soteriology of ‘orthodox’ Christianity are simply not persuasive to increasing numbers of people, at least not enough to get them to change their professions of belief.
The orthodox make the claim that this problem could be solved if the church would just return to right thinking and -preaching. They’re like the Indian rain dancer who insisted that the relentless drought was due to his failure to perform the rain dance properly, not to any inefficacy on the part of rain dancing itself.
(In sales terms, with which I have some familiarity from my days as general counsel of a software company: Consider what happens when a sales force consistently fails to make its numbers, quarter after quarter, even after drastic changes in sales personnel and -management. Almost invariably, the product designers will still claim that the problem has to be with the incompetence of the sales people — it just isn’t possible that people are not buying the product because they can’t tell whether the product really works as advertised.)
It’s sad that Jesus’ example is in danger of being forgotten, thanks to his ancient- and modern successors who insist on preaching their dogmas instead of his simple restatement of the Summary of the Law and his New Commandment.
II became a Christian during the “Jesus street movement†of the late 60’s and early 70’s. There was enthusiasm and an earnest desire to follow Jesus. The Gospel of Christ will find life in new and challenging means; this is the way of God’s spirit. We do need to be reminded that Christ said there would be a great falling away in the end of days, is this it? Is this prophetic? I think this article deserves a lot of thought and discussion!
DC must have one of those Jeffersonian bibles.
Not to worry! According to the Russians, the U.S. will cease to exist by next year.
I put as much faith in this article as I did in the one about the imminent collapse of the U.S., or any of the pieces on anthropogenic global warming, or any of the pieces about any of the “bailout” plans, etc.
In a word, overblown. #11 makes a good point in noting the possibility that the problem is with Christianity itself. The matter deserves examination and it don’t take too, too much of it to find hearty reason for hope if not optimism. There, I find, is the main reason I disagree with the author. Christianity is just fine, its intellectual, spiritual, and yes, emotional attraction fully intact. War-weary and decadent Europe’s confusions are the exception and they are being redressed. It is secularism and its “progressive” religious adjunct that has nothing to offer. Shallow surely calls to shallow in a cheap knock off of that of deep to deep and the vague deity concept of the religious left will surely have its day, but then what? Environmentalism is hot at the moment, but as the ridiculously oversold “global warming” trinket loses its luster, some other fad will be y’comin’ in.
Politically speaking, there’s little evidence of any Leftist surge in this country. The current president was elected because of a particularly low swing of the normal economic cycle, not because his gripping vision for the Republic – practically no one knew in November or knows now what that is. The likely prospect from the get-go has been that the liberal leadership was not going to “fix” the economy (whatever that entails) and so will likely be out on its ear in two years – which is probably the best guarantor of a two-term presidency for the current White House inhabitant, though I think it will likely be a closer thing than currently appears. The dire warnings of, “oooh, we hitched our wagons to the wrong politics and so deserve to croak”, already sound pretty silly to these ears.
I carry no brief for Christian conservatism – though it has more in common with the Christian tradition than its leftist counterpart. Apart from the cruelty of the Left’s inhuman position on abortion, I don’t really care about its agenda one way or another. I couldn’t care less what the tax rate is – but pretending that you’ve somehow done something compassionate by raising it strikes me as both vacuous and arrogant.
As far as losing the young, it’s a worthy concern. The Church has always been a single generation away from extinction, yet has somehow managed to hang on (does anyone really think the Second Temple Judaism of our Lord wasn’t every bit as “outmoded” in the fifth century as it is claimed to be at the moment?) and is growing (in absolute numbers) much, much faster than Islam. Losing the shallow gibberish of bookless Christian bookstores and Precious Moments(TM) figurines and Christian pseudo-grunge bands and WWJD bandanas – particularly if we could toss in rainbow propellor beanies and the rest of the Cursillista regalia with them – not to mention the peace-and-justice hoo-hah, is hardly much of a loss. That stuff equally sappy – if it’s a surge in Roman Christianity, you can keep an eye out for glow-in-the-dark rosaries and St. Josephs to bury in your lawn (bet they’re selling like hotcakes in the current housing crunch) and black light sacred hearts and row upon row of plastic BVMs – will replace all the afore-mentioned Jesus Junk is a given. And of course, there may well be competition from the granola people or the spiritual surfer dudes or whatever strikes Oprah’s fancy next season. They’ve come and gone and they will again. Does anybody really think there’s anything new here?
The Jewishness of Jesus was always a tough sell and hasn’t gotten any easier – note that the self-hatred of anti-Semitism been the prime temptation of the Christian churchman, continuing particularly on the Left these days. And therefore the Jewishness of the Church will always be problematic. The death of the Christian Church has been announced pretty much every generation, including generations both far wiser and far dippier than our own. Christ is in charge, and will remain so to eternity. And His Church will remain who she has always been.
[blockquote]At the risk of being trollish, it continually amazes me that Christians bury their heads in the sand about the gradual decline of mainline- and evangelical Christianity. These folks refuse even to consider, let alone acknowledge, an obvious possibility: That the high christology and soteriology of ‘orthodox’ Christianity are simply not persuasive to increasing numbers of people, at least not enough to get them to change their professions of belief.[/blockquote]
So the answer to the problem of institutional survival is to abandon the truth once delivered to the saints, the truth of the Christian tradition, the truth that one believes in with all of one’s heart, and give oneself over to the Zeitgeist.
Yeah, that’s working out really well for the Episcopal Church and other mainline denominations, isn’t it?
Dc – I think you are right. What isn’t understood is the starting point. I encounter more and more people who are so far from anything resembling church that Christianity seems like speaking Arabic.
I do think that on some level, the faith has to be credible – it has to some how make some kind of sense. The author hits it on the head when he says that evangelicals spend too much time talking to themselves.
What I think is surely not happening is that evangelicals don’t really know what is going on culturally – rather, they have an independent culture. And – as the Barna Study “unchristian” demonstrates – they’re in for a big shock. Most 18-29 year olds think of Christians as
Old fashioned, Hypocritical, phony, anti-gay, too political, killjoys, naive and judgmental.
Let me also say that I think that people aren’t perfectly right about evangelical culture. But it is a monumental pr problem they have.
[blockquote]That the high christology and soteriology of ‘orthodox’ Christianity are simply not persuasive to increasing numbers of people, at least not enough to get them to change their professions of belief.[/blockquote]
And the the “low” soteriology and christology of liberal Christianity is?? Not if numbers are to be believed….liberal mainline Protestants are the greatest losers! If folks do not really need salvation and Christ a good example maybe but not deity…why should church matter at all?
I think the demise of evangelicalism may be overstated…lets nor write obituaries just yet!
Blessings
Seraph
In my opinion, the church has tried to be too relevant to the Mary and Joe Unchurched. Too often, people are only hearing about sound financial management and healing broken relationships at the expense of the gospel. These are fine things, but you don’t need to go to church to have good finances or relationships. Even in my former Episcopalian, now Anglican church the sermons are essentially devoid of any theological content. Mature believers can’t live on such thin gruel; they need sound, biblical, exegetical teaching every week. Enough with church growth nonsense.
#17
Interesting that “speaking Arabic” seems to be working pretty well for muslims. Despite massive cultural difference, and an absence of “accessible” translations of the Koran, Islam is growing in our culture. More disturbingly, some of the faster growing strains of it are exactly the ones that are most at odds with modern culture.
In my experience, the more vocal elements of Islam in North America tend to be highly critical of its decadence, ungodliness, etc. Yet it still grows. This is particularly striking in Europe, where Christianity has been on a fervent quest for relevance, and where historical critical method has been ingrained longer than here. Yet, despite preaching a highly redacted Jesus, as inclusive as the day is long, Christianity is dying very rapidly. Exclusive Islam is filling the void.
Whatever Evangelicalism’s problems with growth, they can’t be explained simply by its exclusivity, or its unwillingness to present Jesus as a bland summarizer of the law. Islam can be very exclusive and presents Mohamed as its unquestionable, authoritative prophet. It hasn’t stopped its growth. Instead, it has tapped into a deep unease within our culture which has born fruit in many converts, even among the young.
If anything, Evangelicalism’s problem is that it has been too accepting of our culture: its materialism, its injustice, its shallowness. Until it starts wrestling with these, it will never effectively answer the deepest longings of our young people’s hearts.
Stephen+
Spong wrote a book – The Church Must Change or Die. He then carried out those changes in Newark with resultant disaster. Yet, DC and John, insanely propose to march forward with same failed Spongian battleplans. The most liberal MSD, espousing this “soteriology” and “Christology”, is the fastest declining – the UCC. Aside from the Lutheran Church – Missouri synod, the rate of decline is proportional to the liberality. (What is up with the LCMS?) So, I am afraid DC and John that your “solutions” to save Christianity have little credibility.
I am convinced that the arch-enemy is the public schools. If Christianity is weeded out of America, it will be due to public schools. Evangelical friends don’t let evangelical friends send their kids to public schools.
George Marsden wrote a book entitled Reforming Evangelicalism a number of years ago–primarily a history of Fuller Seminary in Pasadena California. Evangelicalism as a distinct movement from Fundamentalism took the theological roots of the Fundamentals and has sought to provide a more compelling and engaging case for the same. Successfully, I might add. In the early part of the last century, Fundamentalists were considering uneducated, narrow, and doomed. That was a century ago. As I said above, I am persuaded that evangelicalism, the theological/spirituality movement, will surprise the naysayers.
The author is right to ask the questions and generally does so well. I do want to take on one specific suggestion:
[blockquote]•Evangelicalism needs a “rescue mission” from the world Christian community. It is time for missionaries to come to America from Asia and Africa. Will they come? Will they be able to bring to our culture a more vital form of Christianity? [/blockquote]
Missions exercises spiritual muscles: we are in need of specifically engaging the least evangelized around the world. One in five people have no access to the Gospel in their own language or culture–the vast majority of these people live in places of environmental crisis, war, desperate poverty, political oppression, etc. The very ideals of secularity and progressive christianity are put to a test among these people. The historic Faith has consistently engaged the inconvenient peoples of the world–being strengthened in their own faith and witness at home and transforming the world. The evangelical tradition will find their voice at home if we renew our sacrificial commitment to missions abroad. It will be in that way that we will be strengthened by partnering with the Global South Church.
What about those within Anglicanism who have bought into this article’s kind of evangelicalism as its answer and stimulus package? It will be one heck of a virus to shake. Wasn’t it clear from the start that this foreign import was the lazy-man’s quick-fix pseudo-answer to a much deeper problem? The answer to no one’s problem is to wrap the “faith once delivered” in the stuff in CBD’s sale catalog.
An earlier statement:
“Evangelical friends don’t let evangelical friends send their kids to public schools.”
AMEN!
As there were previous discussions about Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism, I wish to state that, for myself, I want to be just as Fundamentalist and Evangelical as Jesus was – no more, no less.
The labels really don’t mean so much anymore.
Don
Does anyone else remember when all the “intelligent” people said that the church would be dead by the turn of the century — ie 2000 — because as people became ‘scientific’ they would outgrow their superstitious ways.
Yeah right!
#25 Religion will continue to exist. But it won’t be recognizable.
what is interesting to me is how people don’t notice that the decline of the church has a lot to do with entry of the market into all our social spheres. Making money is far more important than building the church.
#19 is probably right on some level. But church growth is predicated on the idea that there need to be professionalized clergy and buildings for parishioners – and people to pay for them. Churches, by and large, can’t afford buildings AND full-time priests.
I find it rather interesting that many churches (including the RCC) are talking about a future of smaller numbers and a “faithful remnant.” Of course, Christ Himself said this is the way it would go in the end.
Count me among those who believe we’re living in Apocalyptic Times. Obviously, I don’t know if it’s THE End Times but it’s clear that we’re seeing an end to life as usual and the beginning of something else. Everyone is thinking and re-thinking.
What I would hope to see in the “new time” is an end to the political nature the churches have taken on, whether it be formally by working within secular political structures or by emulating secular politics and stratagem in church governance and operation. I think this is the biggest difficulty that both believers AND non-believers have and no church is immune from it.
John W- wrote “Most 18-29 year olds think of Christians as
Old fashioned, Hypocritical, phony, anti-gay, too political, killjoys, naive and judgmental”
I had a wise Priest once who said many Christian churches inoculate people to the real Jesus Christ and His Gospel. I guess we will agree on this one!
The relentless war on Christianity and its positive historical influences by culture and the media is affirming to me of Christianity’s truth. I watched a show on the “gay” channel where the host interviewed people and read quotes from the Dalai Lama and ask if they were from the Pope or the Dalai Lama. These quotes were anti homosexual and sexually repressive. Ever quote was attributed to the Pope, not one person recognized who said them! Despite the repression of Islam toward women and the repression of homosexuality by Islam, Islam seems to gets a pass in the media and culture! That is the reason evangelism is so important to Christianity. There is no better endorsement than satisfied customers. Programs like “you don’t have to leave your intelligence at the door to worship here†or “come wonder with us we don’t know either†feed into to the anti intellectual distortions of Christianity created by the media and culture.
#19 – spot on!!
[blockquote]Mature believers can’t live on such thin gruel; they need sound, biblical, exegetical teaching every week.[/blockquote]
SHSilverthorne+ [#19] and JohnD [#30] — that’s right, keep blaming the falling reservoir levels on your fellow rain dancers’ failure to do the rain dance properly ….
DC, if as you argue historic orthodox Christianity is a fraud, then it should, and deserves to, die.
Br. Michael [#32], the available evidence doesn’t support the notion that orthodox Christianity is a “fraud.” To be fraudulent, a statement must be more than merely false or misleading: Among other things, it must have been made with the intent to deceive. I’m not aware of any credible evidence suggesting that the church fathers intended to deceive anyone. Their faithfulness to their beliefs, even unto death, strongly suggests otherwise. So at least provisionally, let’s proceed as though orthodox Christianity were not a fraud.
But “not-fraudulent” is not a synonym for “necessarily true.” Between fraud and truth lies plain old human error, coupled with other human frailties such as (for example) the willingness to discard evidence that doesn’t fit in with the currently-accepted views.
DC, I have read your stuff. I stand by my statement.
However, if you dislike “fraud” let’s say “deluded”.
Br. Michael [#35], it won’t shock you to learn that yes, I do think, provisionally, that those holding to ‘orthodox’ christology and soteriology are deluded, and that’s the way I’m cautiously placing my bets (so to speak); on the other hand, if additional evidence or insights were to suggest that I’m the deluded one, then I would hope I’d be willing to reexamine my position.
And if we are deluded, then Christianity is a lie and should die.
#31
I take it from your dodging my point that you have no adequate response. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Stephen+
SHS+ [#38], what point was that, exactly? I imagine you’re arguing that evangelicals should try to emulate the fervor, certitude, and exclusivism of some Muslims, on grounds that these things seem to help attract converts to Islam. But I can’t imagine you think those are valid reasons for accepting Islam’s tenets as true; it’s certainly not evident that they’d be valid reasons for accepting the tenets of orthodox Christianity.
(Not wanting to run afoul of the well-known corollary to Godwin’s Law, I won’t mention other mass movements that have likewise had immense popularity derived largely from the fervor, certitude, and exclusivism of their adherents.)
Br. Michael [#37] writes: “And if we are deluded, then Christianity is a lie and should die.”
Let’s not be hasty: When you’re on a backpacking trip and see that your boots have got some holes in the soles, you’re unlikely to take them off and throw them away before first finding a better pair; even hole-ly boots are better than going barefoot in the wilderness.
Suppose that the majority of Christians were to see the error of ‘orthodox’ beliefs — what would fill the resulting spiritual vacuum?
Suppose that these former Christians, in the main, were to convert to Reform Judaism, or to what Karen Armstrong refers to as generic ethical monotheism. Personally, I would cautiously welcome such a result. (Arguably, that’s precisely what’s happening in many Western societies.)
But suppose instead that these former Christians were to migrate to, say, radical Islam or Hinduism, or to ultra-orthodox Judaism. That wouldn’t be such good news — all in all, I suspect most of us would prefer that they continued in their former delusions, which like hole-ly boots were not entirely without redeeming social value.
#39
OK, I’ll type more slowly. Where exactly did I say we should emulate muslim exclusivism? I simply refuted the thesis that exclusivity is in and of itself reason for numerical decline.
John Wilkins’ point in #17 was that evangelicals are out of touch with modern culture, and this is part of the reason for their supposed decline. He said that from the perspective of young people, Christianity makes as much sense as Arabic.
I noted that Muslims often start from a point of rejection of western culture, yet this doesn’t stop its growth. Arabic remains prominent in Islam, yet plenty of folks bridge the cultural and linguistic divide in order to embrace it. No shortage of “out of touch” and rigid dogma there. This doesn’t mean what muslims do is morally correct, but it does mean you’re wrong when you suggest that a lack of supposed relevance or rigid attachment to dogma are behind a lack of growth in evangelicals. These things, in and of themselves, don’t prevent growth–regardless of whether you think they’re good things or not.
Moreover, I noted that large swaths of European Christianity have embraced a Jesus free of dogma and exclusivism, and that they did this long before it became vogue over here. However, not only has it not resulted in growth, it has coincided with the church being increasingly sidelined in European culture.
We all may want to criticise elements of evangelicalism, and I agree that it needs it (though we will clearly differ on what needs criticizing). You or I may want it to change its message. Fine. But to say that its “sales” are down because it preaches dogma rather than inclusivism, is simply to ignore reality. Muslims preach exclusive dogma, and they’re growing. European Christians preach inclusivism, and they’re shrinking. Whether these things are good or bad is beside the point. The point is they reveal evangelicalism’s growth problems can’t be reduced to its lack of inclusivity.
Stephen+
SHS+ [#41] writes: “This doesn’t mean what muslims do is morally correct, but it does mean you’re wrong when you suggest that a lack of supposed relevance or rigid attachment to dogma are behind a lack of growth in evangelicals. These things, in and of themselves, don’t prevent growth–regardless of whether you think they’re good things or not. “
There seems to be a certain personality type that is attracted to dogma, or maybe it’s an attraction to the strong leadership that so often springs up among the dogmatic.
It’s not insignificant that scientists, a group whose cultural norms are almost fiercely antagonistic to dogmatism — although certainly some are guilty of it anyway — in the main are anything but orthodox Christian believers. (Yes, I know about Francis Collins, to name one example of a believing scientist of high scientific reputation.)
DC, it would appear that you are much like Jefferson. You like the ethical content, but not the religious content. What you really want is a non-religious philosophy that fits with your personal worldview. That’s fine, but it’s not Christianity.