Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (24)

Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Yet another book has crossed my desk bemoaning the sorry state of evangelicalism. And like many books before it, it highlights a number of scientific studies to prove it. The studies show that when it comes to rates of divorce, premarital sex, political bias, giving, or any number of social issues, "evangelicals" or the "born again" or "conservative Christians" (depending on the survey) are no better than the rest of America, and sometimes do worse.

These facts are usually followed by the dismayed evangelical author asking sometimes plaintively, sometimes prophetically: "Why does the church mirror the culture instead of lead it?" On the heels of righteous indignation come prescriptions and a pep talk. If the church would do "x"—something usually involving spiritual disciplines or church discipline—then the church would once again stand out as a city on a hill.

While we need prophets to exhort us to greater faithfulness, I tend to see such authors as inadvertent false prophets. I'm not thinking of the ones who lament our lukewarmness and then ask us to attend a $200 seminar to fix it. I'm thinking of the ones who are sincerely anxious about the state of the church. While their motives are good, their understanding of the church does not match Jesus' description of it.

I'm troubled by these authors' faith that statistics reveal deep realities of church life or spiritual growth—and by the sheer clumsiness with which they handle numbers. Christian Smith and John Stackhouse have already elaborated on this in articles in Books & Culture. My main concern lies elsewhere.

Their assumption that evangelical Christianity is supposed to be morally superior to other brands of the faith disturbs me. It shocks them when studies show we're no holier than liberals, and that statistically, we often look no better than plain-vanilla pagans. Yikes! What they forget is that evangelicals are sinners, like the rest of Christendom. Evangelicals do some things really well—like evangelism. Other branches of the faith do other things really well—like social justice or liturgy. I believe classic orthodoxy will always sustain the church better than the experimental theologies liberals play with. But I've yet seen hard evidence that shows that when it comes to following Jesus day to day—doing the full spectrum of things he asks of us—we evangelicals do any better. As we follow, we're stepping through the goop of self-centeredness like everyone else. It's just hard.

Another assumption is that it is our job to make the church stand out from the culture, so that all the world will see what wonderful people we are and what a wonderful Savior we have. On the one hand, yes—God uses us to love and to perform good works that will cause some people to believe. On the other hand, he has never displayed his love in such a way that makes his presence plain to everyone.

As Isaiah put it, "Truly, you are a God who hides yourself" (Isa. 45:10). He is the God who may have revealed himself in his law, but did so masked by dark clouds and thick smoke (Ex. 19:16-18). He may have come to us in Jesus, but he did so disguised, in the form of a servant, taking on flesh and blood. He didn't reveal his love by confronting evil in an unequivocal display of power, but by dying in a way considered ungodly. So far, when God has come to us, we haven't been able to pick him out of a crowd. Even after the resurrection—what more unambiguous proof do you want?—some still doubted (Matt. 28:17).

next page... |  1 of 3

September (Web-only) 2007, Vol. 51

Displaying 1–5 of 24 comments

See all comments