Given the diversity and polarization of our culture, we frequently find people hold starkly differing perspectives. So different, in fact, that they sometimes seem more like alternate perceptions of reality rather than just different opinions. In this current political season, evidence of this divide between people is painfully obvious. But politics is not the only place where this chasm is apparent.
Some, for example, look at the condition of the church in Western culture and see a mostly sound institution, but they see a broken society which is so corrupt and degraded that it is incapable of recognizing the truth which the church represents.
Others look at the same scene, and judge that it is primarily the church, not society, which is responsible for the disconnect between the gospel and the culture. In their view, Christians are the ones who have lost their way and they maintain that the broader culture is correct to judge current manifestations of Christianity as deficient.
I look at these two positions and contend that they are both right, to at least some degree. Society is broken and twisted in many deeply significant ways which prevent it from hearing God’s message clearly or objectively. And the church is ineffective is making the case for the gospel due to its many failures which distract from and obstruct its message.
But regardless of where the fault lies, we find ourselves at loggerheads, with both side firmly entrenched and incapable of hearing (or unwilling to hear) anything which the other side has to say – even if it has real merit or truth.
In a new book, The Next Christians: The Good News About the End of Christian America, author Gabe Lyons suggests that this impasse between the church and the culture has reached such a point that nothing is going to change as long as the church, for its part, attempts only to do the same things that it has done up to this point.
If its approach is simply to debate the protagonists, make converts who are not transformed, attempt to legislate morality for society or isolate believers from our defiled culture, it will continue to fail as it has been failing of late. In his opinion, it is just these approaches which have brought us to this point and left the Christian ‘brand’ increasingly ignored and irrelevant in the public square of opinion and culture. Indeed, he sees the contemporary church as so irrelevant that he refers to this period of time as the end of “Christian America”.
Many of my fellow believers would argue with that conclusion and would say that the problem is not that we in the church are doing the wrong things, but only that we haven’t done them often enough, consistently enough, loudly enough or forcefully enough. But Mr. Lyons isn’t buying that. In his mind, these strategies have already been tried and have failed. He declares unequivocally:
By all accounts, that war is officially over. Even the most prominent Christian culture warriors cannot deny it. “The most basic contours of American culture have been altered,” remarks Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Clearly, there is a new narrative, a post-Christian narrative, that is animating large portions of this society.”
Regrettably, I find myself largely agreeing. Further, I also tend to think that more of the same efforts will only bring about more of the same results. There is nothing we can do now that will alter some trends which are, at this point, already encoded into our American culture: pluralism, anti-institutionalism and postmodernism. If we keep on telling ourselves that we can “take back America” by following our existing playbook, I think we are setting ourselves up for profound failure.
However, please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating surrender. I do believe, however, that the existing institutions, the existing methods, the existing strategies – all of these need to be viewed for what they are. These are tools, they are not – in and of themselves – sacred. The objective, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is done in heaven” is.
If the tools you are using are not working, perhaps even irreparably broken, you don’t succeed by defending the tools. You succeed by adopting tools which will accomplish the job. Gabe Lyon contends that there has been such a dramatic shift in the environment in which we are attempting to live out the gospel that the old methods are ineffective or, worse, counterproductive.
More than just our tools, though, he suggests that our attitudes toward the culture in which we live are in need of some retooling, as well. He identifies two major groupings of contemporary Christians and suggests that both have embraced less than effective approaches.
The first, whom he categorizes as Separatists, include the Insiders, the Cultural Warriors and the Evangelizers. As their title suggests, they pull apart from the culture and treat it as if it were something to be protected from, battled or assimilated through evangelism.
The second, labeled Cultural Christians, include the Blenders and the Philanthropists. In avoiding some of the aloofness or combativeness of the Separatists, they tend to err in the opposite direction by presenting nothing distinctive or countercultural in their behavior or attitudes. While frequently good, their goodness is indistinguishable in either nature or degree from that of many other moral people who are not Jesus followers.
Lyons then describes a third way. He refers to these people as Restorers and declares hopefully that these are the next Christians. These are people who see themselves as different from the culture, but engaged with it in a way which is intended to redeem it. And when they use the term ‘redeem’, they mean more than just spiritual redemption, or salvation.
They consider that God intended for the redemption of the world to mean, not less than spiritual salvation, but that and much more beside. And so they work to restore the brokenness of our culture, not through condemnation or isolation, but through proactive, creative engagement. They see the proper venue for this engagement not just in the church, but in the other major influential arenas of culture: media, education, arts and entertainment, business, government and the social sector.
Lyons finds hope in the fact that, instead of retreating, critiquing and judging, they are creating. They are not fearful or reactive. They are courageous and proactive. They find an example in Jesus. He writes,
The biblical scholar Craig Bloomberg calls Jesus’ way of interacting “contagious holiness.” He writes: Jesus discloses not one instance of fearing contamination, whether moral or ritual, by associating with the wicked or impure. Rather, he believes that his purity can rub off on them, and he hopes that his magnanimity toward them will lead them to heed his call to discipleship.
And next Christians find their inspiration not only in the cross, but also in the story of God’s perfect original creation and its promised restoration to perfection when God establishes the new heaven and the new earth. Lyons states,
We all agree that evangelism is an important part of the life of the believer, but a truncated Gospel doesn’t seem to fully utilize some appendages of the body of Christ….Instead of simply waiting for God to unveil the new heaven and the new earth, the rest of us can give the world a taste of what God’s kingdom is all about – building up, repairing brokenness, showing mercy, reinstating hope, and generally adding value. In this expanded model, everyone plays an essential role….The people who are shaping this movement believe with all their hearts that God is in the restoration business – not just in the afterlife, but here on earth as well.
This is not just some kind of generic, do-gooder behavior. It is consciously biblical and spiritually redemptive.
The next Christians believe that Christ’s death and Resurrection were not only meant to save people from something. He wanted to save Christians to something. God longs to restore his image in them, and let them loose, freeing them to pursue his original dreams for the entire world. Here, now, today, tomorrow.
I’m not suggesting that the church has not been intentionally redemptive of the culture in the past. But, in the modern era, we have too often been on the defense, reacting antagonistically to a broken world, confronting it as our enemy. We need to have an honest discussion as to whether this approach best represents the attitude Christ reflected toward the lost world he encountered.
I hope to share more from The Next Christians over a few more posts. Hopefully, it will generate some creative thinking on our parts as to how we wish to engage the people Christ loves.
If you have questions, comments or concerns, you are welcome to share them.
Love the thoughts. I would love to hear more about how to transition the current church model to this and how we can help peole live more this way. That is truly my heartbeat.
Dan, one thing I am hearing a lot which I think bears on what must happen is this idea of expanding our notion of what we call the gospel.
Lyons suggests we are preaching and teaching a truncated gospel that starts out with bad news (“you’re a sinner”) and leads to a preoccupation only with eternity. He believes we will engage a broader spectrum of believers and appeal to a broader spectrum of unbelievers when we add the often overlooked aspects of the complete story of God which includes creation and redemption of the created world (culture, society).
Another book which seemed to do a good job of showing the power of a more comprehensive good news message was James Choung’s, “True Story: A Christianity Worth Believing In”.
Wish I had more answers, but I love the idea that others are on the hunt with me!
Good to see you writing again, Steve!
I think we (myself included) have been confusing the enemy and the prisoners of war. As long as we continue to do so, the prisoners will fight out of self preservation.
The only people Jesus was critical of, were the ones who assumed they had it all figured out, and had the inside track to God. We would do well to take that lesson to heart.
Staci
Well written Steve. I found it interesting in a recent interview Lyons called for the end of Christian America which he says means “an end of the last few decades of a sort of Christian dominance in the power and position of culture, mostly the political sector. When you look at the Religious Right, you see over the last 30 years how much that has dominated how Christians see the world. That has driven cultural perception.” He also states “The (Next Christians) are just looking for how the Church can be a Church that relates to people in our world, who are pretty skeptical of Christians now as a result of the backlash of the Religious Right.”
Whether you agree with this or not you cannot help but notice that the term “Christian” has been marginalized. It can mean different things to different people but most see it as a negative. In trying to figure out where the church went wrong, if it did, Halter and Smay authors of The Tangible Kingdom say that in any communication, nonverbal forms of communication are more powerful than the verbal. They state that perhaps the reason those outside the church aren’t interested in our “good news” isn’t in our message but in our nonverbals. In other words, we don’t walk the walk.
They ask the question”What if we set aside our apologetics and our theological arguments and just lived as Christ would in front of others?”
They firmly believe that if we lived a relational life with believers and non-believers we wouldn’t need to invite anyone to church. They say ” If people aren’t asking about your life, then you haven’t postured your faith well enough or long enough.
Are there simple and easy answers, no, but if we agree that what we have done in the past has not worked maybe first thing we should do is quit doing those things. De-emphasis the “church” building as the place to be on Sunday AM. Maybe do community work then instead. Let’s not choreograph every move, program or group. Lets trust our people and allow the Holy Spirit to guide them. Stress the importance of getting out in the neighborhood and really connect with those you are doing life with. An hour or two a week is not enough. Stress the importance of sacrifice and serving. Not just giving up a latte or beer for a week but things that really will stretch you. It’s only when we have no fall back plan that we really depend on Christ.
Ken, I think I need to read “The Tangible Kingdom”. Its thesis interests and intrigues me. But, having said that, I’m not sure that I would position the matter of verbal versus non-verbal proclamation as an either/or matter. To me, they go hand in hand.
But I ‘get’ that a lot of people are tired of hearing the words when they seem empty or even hypocritical. And I am afraid that the more invested the church is in the business of seeking and exercising power – political or otherwise – the more inevitable it is that our words and our actions will seem in conflict.
This is because, in seeking power, we will, in fact, be in conflict with Jesus’ teaching. Christ’s teachings reverse all of the normal concepts of power, status and wealth. So it should not surprise us that the mixing of of these elements with the faith, even in the pursuit of noble aims, tends to be kryptonite for those who get too close to them.
I think that there is a legitimate argument to be made that even good ‘ends’ promoted through the ‘means’ of political power have a tendency to end up being tarnished in the process. The exercise of power offends those who feel themselves imposed upon, and it tends to corrupt those who wield it.
I would never question the motives of people like those who aligned themselves with the Moral Majority back in the ’80s. The stakes associated with many of the moral and spiritual issues being discussed, like the protection of unborn life, are high. It seems irresponsible to not be in on that cultural conversation, or to fail to use our vote wisely.
But once Christians started to experience the power that they possessed through the sheer numbers of people they could rally, I think many of them began to see politics as the preferred means of accomplishing change. And the more that they wielded their power, the more that moral issues became politicized and the more the conversations became polarized.
I think much of the rabidness of the current cultural dialogue can be traced back to this.
But the current state of dialogue which makes it so unpopular to advocate for biblical Christ-following is now the ‘new normal’, in my opinion. Credibility is no longer credited to Christians automatically. In fact, unlike 50 years ago, I think that the Christian community may actually be starting at a deficit rather than from a position of strength.
This new reality makes it necessary for us to be wiser in our methods. It dictates that we spend more time thinking about issues of credibility and how we can earn it, since we can no longer just assume we have it.
So, I think making the kingdom ‘tangible’ through unexpected acts of caring and service is probably not just wise, it may be absolutely imperative. But I would not want to go so far as to suggest that means that being able to reasonably and cogently verbalize our faith is no longer necessary. I would hope we would not go from one out-of-balance extreme to another.
But, yes, we have got to find ways to loose the Kingdom into the world in a way that will resonate with those who are currently disaffected from intitutional Christianity. And doing that will likely not center around a building, or a program or a Sunday service.
Rather, we need to find ways to engage genuinely, authentically and in a way that reflects Jesus’ approach to those with whom he interacted. He seemed to have no trouble getting people to believe that he cared about them. We don’t seem to have the same knack. It’s time we start learning how.
Well written, Steve! Hope you remember me from high school!
As a first-year student going for a Masters in Theology, with the goal of ordination, I wish I had the space and time to write everything on my mind…but suffice it to say, I think the premise many Christians have of “bringing America back” Is flawed. What are we going to bring it back to? To a former version of the current situation! Things don’t happen in a vacuum, events have results, even if they are unforeseen and unintended and happen years (or even centuries) later. But I firmly believe that in general we have lost the sense of the sacred. Speaking from an Orthodox Christian perspective and at the risk of sounding offensive, I find this true of many of my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. That is not their fault. For more on this premise from an Orthodox opinion, I suggest you read an excellent book called Dancing Alone by Frank Schaeffer.
Besides, as you well know, we are living in the end times. In Rev. 11:18 we find open hostility to the Gospel when God sends against the unbelieving nations, who become angry at God as if the Gospel were some new or strange teaching.
I think the best thing we can do as Christians is to lead by example. Strive to be as Christ-like as you can–the concept we Orthodox call theosis or deification. God made us so that we might become “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and sharers in His eternity, and so that we might come to be like Him (1 John 3:2) through deification by His grace.
Hope we can talk some more on this issue. You can find me on Facebook.
Your brother in Christ,
Manny