Book Review: THE PRACTICING CONGREGATION: IMAGINING A NEW OLD CHURCH by Diana Butler Bass

BOOK REVIEW: THE PRACTICING CONGREGATION: IMAGINING A NEW OLD CHURCH[1]

Introduction

For the past three decades, the mainline Protestant church experienced significant decline. However, Diana Butler Bass, through research at the Virginia Theological Seminary, discovers a renewed vitality in some mainline churches. How are some mainline congregations experiencing vitality in spite of the complexity and fragmentation of Western society? The purpose of this book review is to explore Butler Bass’ findings concerning mainline Protestant vitality, interpret her findings, and apply them to the local congregation.

Understanding the Book

This is a practical theology book that examines the reasons why some mainline Protestant congregations are experiencing a renewed vitality in the U.S.

. . . It attempts to track the changes [in mainline congregations] – where the changes fit in the overall history of American religion, what cultural trends sparked the changes, why these things are happening now, and how mainline churches are experiencing new vitality through innovative engagement with traditional Christian practices (p. 3).

Instead of suggesting that mainline congregations must change, the author argues that they already are changing and offers the reasons why. This book comes as a result of a three-year study in which the author explored how Christian practices serve as a catalyst for church revitalization (p. xi).

There are three major themes that guide this book. First, the author insists that the stories told about the alleged demise of the mainline church are inaccurate. She insists that the story being told about mainline denominations is largely about loss of prominence in U.S. culture, conflict, and decline (p. 4). Those within mainline congregations believed these stories told by people outside of the tradition, “ . . . whose work is sometimes driven by agendas that benefit from stories of conflict and decline”, which cause a crisis of self-understanding (p. 4). However, the author insists that there are congregations that made a conscious decision to change and are emerging as vital, spiritually vibrant churches that are “ . . . interesting, energetic, creative, and lively . . .” (p. 91).

One of the reasons for the renewal of many mainline congregations is because of their “collective imagination.” This second major theme suggests that the pastoral imagination (what congregants in my faith tradition refer to as “vision”) is part of a greater work of the people of God in community (p. 5). The author maintains that while theological and ministerial education for the pastor is a part of congregational vitality, without the collective imagination of the congregation as a whole, this training merely provides “professional expertise” in congregational ministry (p. 6). She identifies collective imagination as the “ . . . spiritual gift of seeing God at work and embodying faith, hope, and love in the world” (p. 6). It is important for a pastor to foster an environment that thrives on a collective imagination so that a church can seek “deeper levels of meaning” in history (p. 6).

The third major theme is the emergence of mainline congregations brimming with vitality because they have established a vital link between the past traditions, the formation of new traditions, and the establishment of Christian practices in these congregations. By using sociological and philosophical arguments, by describing the current place of the Church (mainline or evangelical) within the religious and cultural climate of the U.S., and by providing an argument for a renewed emphasis on spiritual practices, she explains the source of the vitality of emerging mainline congregations.

Through these themes, the author seeks to solve several problems. The first problem that she seeks to solve is what I will call the “culture problem.” The culture problem is the complexity of postmodern culture. She seeks to solve this problem by correctly placing emerging mainline congregations in its place in American religious history by describing three religious disestablishments (pp. 23-28): (1) the first disestablishment - the disestablishment of a state religion, (2) the second disestablishment – the inclusion of Roman Catholics and Jews to form the “Judeo-Christian” national identity, and (3) the third disestablishment – the replacement of the influence of established religion in U.S. culture with the autonomous individual. This third disestablishment initiated a phase of religious history in the U.S. and in the world that she calls “detraditionalization,” which is “ . . . a set of processes, variously described as ‘post-traditional’ or ‘postmodern,’ whereby received traditions no longer provide meaning and authority in everyday life” (p. 28). She identifies this as a worldwide process that is affecting most of the established cultures and that cultures and churches are going through a “retraditioning” process. Therefore, this conflict is not isolated to the church and not caused by the church.

This necessarily leads to the second problem that the author seeks to solve, which I will call the “tradition problem.” She argues that the conflict experienced between generations in the church is not a matter of traditional vs. contemporary. In fact, she argues that many of the conflicts that are occurring within church are over various types of tradition. She argues that the conflict within churches is over which forms of tradition are authentic forms of discipleship (p. 37).

Finally, Butler Bass seeks to solve what I call the “polarization problem” – the conflict between liberals and conservative, mainline and evangelical (pp. 69-90). She seeks to solve this problem by describing as clearly and concisely as possible the philosophies of each camp. She also explains the scope of the Protestant ideological landscape and its complexity (p. 87).

INTERPRETATION

There are two key terms and one core proposition that should be defined in order to understand how Butler Bass’ seeks to solve these problems. First, she seeks to describe and define “tradition” and compare it to other expressions of congregational life that cause conflict. She exposes the problems and complexity associated with defining “tradition” by explaining that other concepts (e.g., “ . . . customs, convention, routine, and endowment . . . ”) are associated with tradition and can confuse the issue (p. 39). Whereas it is difficult to identify a clear definition of “tradition” provided by the author, ultimately, she implies that traditions are those practices and activities of congregational life that emerge through “fluid retraditioning . . . [which] recognizes the paradoxical nature of modernity and tradition” and serve as expression of what a generation feels are true expressions of authentic discipleship (p. 42). She argues that there are no fixed Christian traditions, only what emerges through the connection with ancient Christian practices and contemporary issues of living.

Second, she describes the new, emerging mainline congregations as “practicing congregations” or “intentional churches” (p. 32). These congregations are “intentional” congregations that are thriving on new traditions that are grounded in ancient practices of spirituality, not on the traditions handed down by their parents. They are purposeful congregations that seek an authentic encounter with God, with other people, and with themselves (p. 79). They do not receive traditions; they “re-tradition” in order to experience these encounters.

Practicing congregations seem to have accepted some of the wider cultural results of detraditionalization while, at the same time, retraditioning their own communities where Christian faith may be a vital way of life embodied for post-traditional Americans – a generation looking for authentic and purposeful ways to order fragmented and individual existence (p. 32).

Furthermore, practicing congregations are formed around Christian practice. These practices are a way of living life – a way of authentic discipleship (p. 65). These congregations are not seeker-driven; they are practice driven. “Christian practices are the constituent parts of a larger Christian way of life, as revealed, modeled, and taught by Jesus Christ” (p. 65). She provides three general categories of Christian practices: (1) moral practice (e.g., hospitality, healing, caring for the dying, stewardship and doing justice), (2) ascetical practices (e.g., traditional spiritual disciplines), and (3) anthropological, which is the resistance to “ . . . fixing such actions” (p. 66).

These definitions lead to Butler Bass’ core proposition. It is a simple proposition that weaves its way through the whole of the book. She argues that the key to understanding the vitality of the emerging mainline Protestant church is to understand their willingness to examine their core practices in light of the emerging culture, not in light of the establishment (pp. 78-80). By citing the work of a sociologist, she argues for a key to the vitality of the mainline Protestant church – “ . . . a congregation’s stance toward tradition and innovation is foundational to its vitality” (p. 43).

Reflection

There are several strengths of Butler Bass’ book. First, it is simple, concise, and clear. As a senior pastor, I became increasingly aware of the complexity of the issues facing Western culture and the complexity of the religious landscape in the United States, especially among Protestants. Protestantism is quite clearly not a homogenous religious institution. In fact, when speaking with someone who self-identifies as a Christian, his or her worldview, traditions, theology, customs, and attitude toward the Bible will most likely be significantly different than your own. Butler Bass provides a clearer picture of the scope of the Protestant religious landscape in the U.S. In other words, she provides a great “macro-view” of Protestantism. Without digressing into a war of philosophies, she offers a “practice continuum” with a simple expression and yet captures the complexity of the nature of Christianity (p. 87). She simply describes how it is.

Furthermore, the manner in which she provides her findings is largely descriptive. Although she is implicitly taking a stand on and proposing a philosophy of ecclesiology, she does not provide yet another “model of ministry” to clutter a bookshelf.[2] Models of ministry are often so contextually defined and limited that most are simply not transferable. Instead, she takes a principled approach to ecclesiology and spirituality that are pliable in various contexts (i.e., “practices”).

Another important strength of her book is her insistence that the culture problem is “just the way it is” (pp. 21-33). By bookshelf is bulging with books that place the blame for the cultural and religious climate in the United States squarely on the shoulders of the Church. I am becoming more and more convinced that accusation is incorrect and leads to a consumer-driven model of ministry. I could not agree with the author more that “many changes, conflicts, and tensions do not arise from factors within religious communities themselves. Rather, these things are the result of institutions reacting and responding to larger cultural changes – trends, ideas, and practices outside the church building” (pp. 21-22). Her explanation of the scope of the cultural shift constantly occurring within the U.S. and the world should liberate the pastor and congregation from the guilt of a faulty worldview.

As a theological conservative, I find two weaknesses. The most glaring and significant omission from Butler Bass’ arguments is any explicit reference and only two indirect references from the Holy Bible. In her book, I read citations from philosophers, sociologists, historians, theologians, and pastors. I do not find any explicit reference from Christianity’s most sacred text (dare I say it? One of Christianity’s most sacred “traditions”?). If we are to establish a link through a chain of traditions to the ancient life of Christianity, my conviction is that the Holy Bible should be referenced in some fashion, at least to validate the ecclesiology of the “practicing congregation.”

Consequently, I reject her argument about the immutability of “core teaching.” She argues:

. . . Core teaching changes over time. Thus, it cannot be simply preserved. Even in groups that believe they are preserving tradition, ironic (and often unnoticed) adaptations and adjustments occur. Core teaching can remain central, part of the longer tradition while it is being re-read, reconstructed, or reappropriated; and core teaching might include a variety of beliefs, interpretations, and practices that actually change over time (p. 44).

Furthermore, she argues that it is inappropriate to assign to core teachings an “immutable status” (p. 44). She makes this claim through the interpretive lens of sociologists and historians. Granted, core teachings do in fact change over time because humans change and make adaptations and adjustments to them. However, from a theologically conservative perspective, the fact that humans, cultures, and conditions change does not necessarily demand that truth changes or that there are no immutable teachings drawn from scripture. I stand with other conservatives in arguing that it is the task of the theologian to seek, as best as possible, get to the core teachings from God through the holy scriptures and allow those eternal, unchanging principles to inform our ecclesiology in context, not merely through the lens of the social and historical sciences. The social and historical sciences should validate what was already revealed in Scripture, not the other way around.

It is important to note this hermeneutical distinction, not as an inflammatory polemic against the theologically liberal hermeneutic (the Lord knows that conservatives have much to learn from the social justice initiatives, principles of inclusion and hospitality of the theologically liberal), but to explain the difficulty in utilizing this book in my context of ministry. As a seminary-trained pastor, I find it simple and refreshing to draw from Butler Bass’ findings and be reflexive concerning the purposes and motivations behind our traditions. However, the primacy assigned to the Holy Bible and our core teaching concerning the nature of the Holy Bible in our faith tradition would act as a “filter” that would prevent someone reading this book to view it reflectively and objectively.

Nevertheless, I can draw from Butler Bass’ findings some principles of congregational vitality that I can apply vocationally. First, I appreciated her discussion on “reflexive spirituality.” She insists that intentional churches “ . . . think about what they do and why they do it in relation to their own history, their cultural context, the larger Christian story found in scriptures and liturgy, and in line with the longer traditions of Christian faith. In addition to thinking about their practices, they reflexively engage practices that best foster their sense of identity and mission” (p. 80). She quotes Wade Clark Roof who says that reflexive spirituality entails contemplating the traditions and practices from a distance to determine how these traditions fit into the history of a church and the Church and then determining the range of possibilities (p. 80). In the past, I simply adopted or adapted practices and traditions from other congregations and wondered why these never seemed to hold the power or effectivenesss they held in other churches. After reading Butler Bass, I am convinced that they were implemented out of a fad instead of out of reflexive spirituality. We never took the time to determine their function and merely adopted their form. Henceforth, we will contemplate the forms of our current traditions and be reflexive about how we form new traditions.

If I read the author correctly, one of the keys to congregational vitality is the collective imagination. To truly be reflexive about the traditions and practices, it must take the collective vision of the congregation in order for there to be vitality. It cannot merely be an entrepreneurial exercise from the pulpit. It must be a deeply held desire to walk in authentic discipleship help by the whole congregation.

When the pastor can tap into the collective “vision” of the congregation, then he can remove a significant barrier to church health and vitality. Butler Bass proposes that one of the results of the third religious disestablishment is the emphasis on individual autonomy. According to her, there is an upshot to the reality of the autonomous person:

The upside of individual autonomy is that people must take spiritual, moral, and ethical responsibility for themselves, thus giving them a higher stake in their choices. When they join congregations or religious movements, they do so because they believe in them and something congruent with their life experiences in a particular gathering. In short, they are potentially more committed churchgoers when they walk in the door of a church than their parents, who (perhaps) remained faithful out of communal loyalty rather than personal choice (p. 25-26).

This solves two problems. First, it identifies a significant barrier to attracting and keeping those living in a postmodern context. In other words, it explains why people do not come to church - it is no longer meaningful. Second, by removing that barrier through the collective imagination of the congregation, it gives potential churchgoers the meaning and motivation, “something to believe in,” to be involved in the mission of the church (p. 27).

Conclusion

Several years ago, I experienced significant conflict over the traditions of the church for which I was the pastor. At the time, I could not grasp the source(s) and dynamics of the conflict. For me, it was simply a matter of mission. Why would we not want to change for the sake of the mission of God? Later, after re-planting that church (and after the fallout from the previous congregational conflict settled), I simply instituted traditions from previous congregations in which I was involved without reflecting on the forms and functions of these traditions. In other words, I was not “reflexive.” I did not think through how these practices would or would not foster the sense of identity that we were seeking. Perhaps out of instinct, or perhaps by Divine grace, the congregation’s practices “morphed” into a new way of congregational life that embodied the experiences of our history and sought to create an environment that reflected the journey through which we had been. In other words, our practices were “retraditioned” because of our story, not because something another church had done.

In retrospect, after having read and understood the power of story in Practicing Congregation, I can clearly see how our church has become the product of a new story being told in a relatively old congregation (within our faith tradition). I can see how this new story is unfolding before our very eyes. Where are we on the plot line? After the drama of a church split, one could argue that we are at the denouement. However, after reading this book, I would argue that we are just now coming out of the status quo and experiencing the drama of a new story in which the climax has yet to be reached.

---

[1] Diana Butler Bass, The Practicing Congregation: Imagining a New Old Church (Herndon, Virginia: The Alban Institute, 2004).

[2] The author states that she “ . . . offers no program to make change happen in congregations” (p. 3). However, the implications of her descriptions, her explanation of “retraditioning,” and her celebration of the move of both mainline and evangelical churches toward being intentional churches are clearly prescriptive.

Book Review: THE FUTURE OF FAITH IN AMERICAN POLITICS: THE PUBLIC WITNESS OF THE EVANGELICAL CENTER by David P. Gushee

BOOK REVIEW: THE FUTURE OF FAITH IN AMERICAN POLITICS: THE PUBLIC WITNESS OF THE EVANGELICAL CENTER[1]

Introduction

Across the political landscape of the United States of America, the ideological divisions that exist between political persuasions are growing wider and deeper. Unfortunately, the divisions are just a deep among evangelicals and becoming wider, especially in how evangelicals engage in the influence of public policy. Is there a biblical answer for the direction of political influence for evangelicals? Should evangelicals delve into the development and application of public policy at all? In The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center, David P. Gushee examines the spectrum of political involvement by evangelicals and proposes a “centrist” solution to provide a healthy, public witness. The purpose of this paper is to explore, interpret, and apply Gushee’s work.

Understanding the Book

Future of Faith is a religion book that describes the relationship of evangelical Christianity and politics in the United States of America. Gushee describes the major ideological divisions between evangelicals across the political landscape and describes the major influences within specific political camps. Furthermore, he argues for the existence of, and encourages the growth of, a new evangelical voice – the “evangelical center” – that better captures the range of issues on which evangelicals should be focusing. He insists that this evangelical voice in the world of public policy is critically important, not just for evangelicalism, but also for the future of the United States (p. xvii). Thus, his goal is to “ . . . stake a claim to an emerging evangelical center in American public life and to describe the public moral witness of that evangelical center by contrasting it with its right-leaning and left-leaning alternatives” (p. 3).

There are three major themes that guide Gushee’s arguments. First, there is a theological theme that threads its way through all of his arguments – the sanctity of all human life. Inherent in all of the issues for which evangelicals should take a stand, the sanctify of and respect for God’s creation, especially humans, should be the focus. Whether arguing against torture, discussing marriage and family issues, climate control, or war, Gushee maintains that the sanctity of human life should be the “default” theological principle of evangelicals to influence the formation of public policy. Second, Gushee argues for the importance of political involvement from evangelicals, not avoidance. Third, he wants to introduce the evangelical center, provide a description of the characteristics of the center, and propose a broader evangelical agenda for public engagement.

There are three main problems that Gushee seeks to solve. The first problem he seeks to solve is the perception that being an evangelical is equated with the evangelical right (or Republican) (p. 24). He makes this clarification for those tend to lump all evangelicals into this camp. He attempts to solve this problem by providing a description of the evangelical right, left, and the emerging evangelical center (pp. 3-117). For each camp, he gives a description of their major influences, concise history, and agendas.

Second, he argues that when engaging the public arena, evangelicals need a “ . . . biblically grounded rethinking of Christianity’s entire engagement with American culture” (p. xvii). He insists that to even use the terms right, left, and center is borrowed from secular culture and proves troublesome. Perhaps he suggests this because many, especially on the evangelical right, have equated being a part of a particular political party with Christianity. Instead, he maintains:

. . . What matters for Christians is not that we be right, left, or center but that we be faithful to our Lord. No evangelical Christian would or should go to the wall to defend centrist (or rightist or leftist) evangelicalism. Heaven forbid. These categories are provisional and in many ways unsatisfactory. No, we seek to follow Jesus, who was not and could never be confined within our ideological categories or political loyalties. He is our Lord, and in the end his is the only vote that matters (p. 221).

The third problem that makes this book necessary is the shrill, antagonistic voices heard across the political spectrum. It seems that political camps have become so entrenched and polarized that achieving common goals seem too difficult to reach. In fact, these political, ideological differences are significantly affecting relationships in the Church of Jesus Christ, as well. There are “ . . . fellowship-threatening ideological cleavages [that] have surfaced within the evangelical world” (p. 217).

Furthermore, Gushee describes four indisputable facts that he feels necessitates an emerging evangelical center (pp. xviii-xix). First, “Conservative evangelical [evangelical right] political activism is evoking a heated backlash.” Across the political arena, many are reacting to what they perceive as combative activism by the evangelical right and responding in kind. Second, “Battles over evangelical right involvement with politics are merging into the broader ‘culture wars’ environment that is tearing our country apart.” He accurately says that it is becoming difficult to distinguish between the evangelical right and the secular conservative agenda. Furthermore, it is becoming more difficult to identify a pure, evangelical voice. Within those that identify themselves as evangelicals, there is increasing diversity on the political issues that they should be addressing. In fact, Gushee insists, “The screeching tone of the argument (it is not a conversation) is contributing to the depressing, even dangerous, polarization of American society and the loss of a sensible center…” (p. xviii). Third, “Many sense that our culture is in crisis but see the churches as part of the problem rather than part of the solution.” With all of the real problems that our country is facing, the Church seems to have aligned herself with a political part and participating in a “culture war” instead of fulfilling its true mission. Fourth, “A growing number of visible evangelicals, including the ‘evangelical pope,’ Billy Graham, are disillusioned with politics, especially with conservative engagement in politics.”

Interpretation

Before attempting to solve the problems associated with the relationship of evangelicals with American politics, he addresses philosophical “obstacles” that he believes would prevent a clear presentation of an evangelical “centrist” perspective. The first obstacle is “the secularist obstacle,” which suggests, “Christians are theocrats who should stay out of politics” (p. 4). He maintains that “Citizens who care about politics and public life are an asset to a democracy, certainly by contrast with the many free riders . . . who enjoy the benefits of democratic life without making any contribution to it whatsoever” (p. 5). He argues that any Christian that is serious about being a responsible citizen should be celebrated, not scorned. The second obstacle that he overcomes is “the sectarian obstacle: the Church is all the politics Christians need” (pp. 7-16). There are those in evangelical circles that insist that we should stay out of politics for various reasons. He argues from an imminent kingdom perspective that it is our responsibility as the Church of Jesus Christ to project the kingdom of God on politics. Third, he attempts to remove “the technical problem: definitional problems” by exploring the various ways in which evangelicals are defined and the problems associated with each definition.

Gushee attempts to solve these problems descriptively and prescriptively. First, he describes the various evangelical voices attempting to influence politics in the United States. Second, he prescribes an agenda for a witness of the evangelical center that emphasizes principles that are pro-human, pro-creation (what the evangelical center is for) by reframing the argument with the biblical principle of the sanctity of human life. In other words, he attempts to expand the political agenda of evangelicals to focus on principles that we should be for rather than what we are against: “I argue that the emerging evangelical center offers a more faithful and more fruitful rendering of Christian convictions in the public arena than that which can be found elsewhere” (p. 4).

Gushee identifies three distinct evangelical “voices” that are pressing their agendas in Washington – right, left, and now the center (p. 217). He borrows these terms from the secular political world to describe these voices. It is important to understand how he identifies and defines these evangelical voices before interpreting his propositions.

First, he describes the “evangelical right.” Organizationally, they are “ . . . a network independent but interconnected churches and parachurch organizations” (p. 25) that are typically formed around a charismatic leader. He presents ten conservative, activist groups, and their leaders, that have grown to represent the most influential for the evangelical right. Some of the most notable and recognizable are Focus on the Family led by James Dobson, Christian Coalition led by Roberta Combs, the Southern Baptist Convention Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) led by Richard Land, and the Moral Majority Coalition. For each of these groups, he provides a brief history and major points of their agendas. Furthermore, he expands his discussion to include prominent black and latino leaders and organizations on the evangelical right.

Gushee defines the general agenda of the evangelical right as “the narrative of decline, defense, and combat” (p. 41). First, he suggests that the agenda of the evangelical right is a reaction to the loss of a previous way of life. They are bemoaning the loss of the “traditional values” of the United States. Second, they are adamant about protecting the United States from attack from foreign countries. He describes them as “anti-internationalist” and “isolationist” in their foreign policy (p. 43). They are very patriotic and have a “God and country” mentality. Third, he describes the evangelical right as having a “defensive and angry tone”; thus, they seem combative in how they press their agenda (p. 43).

Then, Gushee provides his points of agreement and points of critique of the right (pp. 44-55). He commends the right for their activist passion and concern for the direction of the nation. Their patriotism and respect for American constitutional democracy is to be admired. He identifies specific points of agreement with the evangelical right, such as the “deterioration and deinstitutionalization of marriage,” abortion, and concerns about secular media (p. 46). Gushee’s critique of the evangelical right is summarized by “ . . . four primary concerns: partisanship, agenda, mood, and ecclesiology (understanding the church)” (p. 47). According to Gushee, the evangelical right has become so closely associated with the secular, conservative right that functionally it has become “ . . . a political bloc within the Republican Party in the United States, just as organized labor has functioned within the Democratic Party” (p. 47). However, it is impossible to “ . . . represent ‘the church’ and to function as a bloc with a national political party” (p. 48). He claims that the evangelical right has fundamentally aligned itself with a political party instead of Jesus Christ (p. 49).

Gushee then describes the evangelical left (pp. 57-85). The evangelical left is a values-centered presentation of the Christian faith. Theologically, the evangelical left will identify remarkably well with other evangelicals. However, the significant differences lie in the application of biblical principles. Whereas the political agenda of the evangelical right is narrow in its scope of issues, the evangelical left is narrow with its selection of biblical sources. “They tend to be explicitly Jesus-centered in their use of scripture and their rhetoric” (p. 10). Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, and Brian McClaren are the three voices that the author suggests are the main influences among white, evangelical leftists with Jesse Jackson and Obery Hendricks representing the black community.

As with the right, the author presents those qualities of the evangelical left that should be admired and those qualities that should be critiqued (pp. 75-85). The most significant quality that should be admired is its “ . . . indigenous agenda – what it is for, rather than what it is against” (p. 75). He identifies as one of their strengths a “Jesus-centered radicalism” that identifies the socially radical issues that Jesus championed: inclusion, attacking greed, relief, and the rejection of violence (p. 77). The most important critique of the evangelical left is their stance on, or at least their avoidance of, abortion and homosexuality (p. 79). Furthermore, their pacifist stance draws considerable criticism due to the reality of attack on the United States on 9/11.

However, the main thrust of Gushee’s work in this book is to “ . . . introduce you to the evangelical center, urge my own evangelical community to converge on this center and join our cause and urge non-evangelical and non-Christian readers to learn more about us. If nothing else, I want this book to help end the misperception of evangelical public witness as either unipolar (Christian right) or bipolar (right vs. left)” (p. xix). He insists that the emerging evangelical center is gaining traction in the public arena and “ . . . has the potential to function as a centripetal force” (p. 87). He introduces and defines the evangelical center by providing a significant list of characteristics and provides further characteristics that make them distinct from the evangelical right and left (pp. 88-89):

· Shared, visible, central concern about the decline of marriage and its impact on the well-being of children

· Clearly articulated opposition to abortion and euthanasia

· Opposition to the creation-for-destruction of embryos and majority opposition to the harvesting of stem cells from existing embryos

· Strong concern about the moral content of mass media

· Rejection of the morality of sex outside of heterosexual, monogamous, marriage

· Rejection of gay marriage

He goes on to name the emerging leaders and organizations that Gushee would identify as possessing the qualities of the evangelical center (whether they would acknowledge it or not), namely Ron Sider, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, Christianity Today, Intervarsity Press, and Baker Books. Furthermore, he identifies pastors from various traditions and megachurches that are characteristic of the evangelical center that Gushee defines.

From describing the emerging evangelical center, Gushee provides a compelling argument for four key centrist issues: (1) torture and human rights, (2) marriage and the law, (3) creation care and the climate change debate, and (4) evangelicals and war. Finally, the author provides suggestions on how the evangelical center should proceed into the future, which includes a clear teaching tradition and better scholarship on the characteristics and issues that define the center (pp. 219-221).

Application

There are two primary strengths of this book. First, it places a “finger on the pulse” of the evangelical influences in the public arena. Gushee has clearly and concisely described the major evangelical influences of public policy. Without this book, it would be more difficult to distinguish between the various voices because theologically these voices would generally agree. However, the “disconnect” occurs in the application of the same scripture on which these various groups stand. He gives a clearer picture of the major players, positions, and scope of their influence in our culture.

The second strength of this book is the manner in which the information was presented. Instead of stooping to inflammatory rhetoric, which is so common in the left-right “screaming match,” Gushee presents his case for an evangelical center without abrasive and polarizing language. I appreciated the genuine concern for humanity that emanated from his work.

There are many evangelicals like myself who are in a constant state of “cringe.” I felt some sense of relief to know that I am not alone by “. . . [sensing] that something has gone dramatically wrong, and [hope] to call the church back to its core mission” (p. xix). I recall seeing a t-shirt following the 2004 election that read, “Once again God speaks through a Bush.” I also recall the sickening feeling in my stomach. On the other side of the spectrum, the reaction to the evangelical right and the tone of the response from the left was equally disturbing and polarizing. It was during this period that as a follower of Christ that I began to truly pay attention to how Christians are perceived and received in the public arena.

I find only one primary weakness in his book. Gushee argues, “We need a biblically grounded rethinking of Christianity’s entire engagement with American culture” (p. xvii). I could not agree more with his proposal. Clearly, there is a significant “disconnect” with culture. However, I do not feel that he provides adequate biblical to support his propositions. In fact, I found only one explicit exposition of a biblical principle commonly referred to as imago Dei (pp. 129-132). I recognize that this book is not intended to be a theological treatise. However, if his argument were supposedly biblical grounded, I would expect to see a more significant representation of the Bible in his argument, including support from the apostle Paul. I would insist that in order to garner more support from those Moderns (and those on the right) that hold a high view of the whole Bible and still find value in dogmatic theology, Gushee would need to provide more biblical evidence to support his proposals. I would suggest an expanded discussion of one major principle that would enhance his arguments: a clear expression of the “concrete” nature of biblical righteousness and what that looks like while seeking to influence public policy.

Nevertheless, this book is extremely helpful as a pastor in a conservative, right-leaning fellowship. The reason that this book is extremely important is that it forces me as a pastor to address a theological issue that was not a priority in my theological studies: the kingdom of God. To be quite honest, the faith tradition in which I was raised clearly identifies with all of the objections to political engagement listed in the “sectarian obstacle.” However, I do not find myself defensive about this position. In fact, it forces me to reflect objectively and drives me back into scripture to address the compelling argument that Gushee makes concerning the necessity of Christian political engagement.

Conversely, it is because of this particular obstacle that this book would be difficult to use within my faith tradition. The theological differences and resulting ministry foci would present a significant paradigm shift for many in our fellowship. Whereas most (I think?) would agree with Gushee on some of the issues that the church should address, and the underlying biblical principles, the reason for political engagement would be quite different. Again, this forces us to objectively explore scripture to challenge our assumptions about the kingdom of God and the scope of its influence on politics.

Conclusion

David P. Gushee provides a clear picture of the type of involvement and divisions of evangelicals within the political arena. He gives an explicit expression of a political agenda for a growing number of evangelicals that are dissatisfied with the left-right evangelical, political options. He provides a clear description and agenda for the advancement of a broader range of biblically-based issues that the Church needs to address to provide a better witness for the kingdom of God.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Gushee, David P. The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008.

---

[1] David P. Gushee, The Future of Faith in American Politics: The Public Witness of the Evangelical Center (Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008).

BOOK REVIEW: UNCHRISTIAN: WHAT A NEW GENERATION REALLY THINKS ABOUT CHRISITANITY … AND WHY IT MATTERS

BOOK REVIEW: UNCHRISTIAN: WHAT A NEW GENERATION REALLY THINKS ABOUT CHRISITANITY … AND WHY IT MATTERS [1]

INTRODUCTION

Often Christians experience negative reactions from people in their community, perhaps even family and neighbors, and cannot understand the source of the hostility that seems to be directed toward Christians in the United States. Why do people react to Christians and refuse to accept the truth that the Bible teaches about Jesus and the Church? David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons examine the perceptions of those outside the Christian faith and the reasons for these reactions. The purpose of this paper is to review Kinnaman and Lyons’ unChristian and describe its content, propositions, and application to ministry.

UNDERSTANDING THE BOOK

Kinnaman and Lyons deal with practical theology (religious life) issues related to the perceptions of present-day, Western Christianity from those outside of the Christian faith. Their methods for gathering data are surveys and interviews. They provide their analyses of the results from the study and suggestions for solving Christianity’s “image problem” in Western culture (p. 11). Their goal was to “…generate ample conversation about the nature of sin and solutions for the slipping reputation of Christianity in our culture” (p. 205). Furthermore, they invite leading evangelicals to contribute by providing their reactions to the study and suggestions for healthier ministry in a contemporary context.

The authors begin their book by providing a simple theme that guides the overall tone and thrust of their response to this study: “Christianity has an image problem” (p. 11). They find that those outside of the Christian faith have little trust in Christianity and “little esteem for the life-style” of Christ-followers (p. 11). In fact, they find that many outsiders reject Christianity, and thus Christ, because they insist that Christians “no longer represent what Jesus had in mind, that Christianity in our society is not what it was meant to be” (p. 15).

According to the authors, their motive for conducting this study emerges from the negative reactions they personally experience in conversations with friends and neighbors (p. 15). Therefore, there are four problems the authors seek to solve (p. 11). First, they seek to determine the actual perceptions that outsiders hold toward Christians. Second, they explore the reasons why these perceptions exist. Third, they seek to discover whether these perceptions reflect reality. Fourth, they provide an argument that these perceptions should be understood and should matter to the contemporary Church.

From their research, they find three dominant perceptions that outsiders hold concerning Christians, which the authors term the “big three”: antihomosexual (91 percent), judgmental (87 percent), and hypocritical (85 percent) (p. 27). The authors address these perceptions along with other major perceptions and present six broad themes: (1) hypocritical, (2) too focused on getting converts, (3) antihomosexual, (4) sheltered, (5) too political, and (6) judgmental.

INTERPRETATION

There are two significant terms the authors use consistently that should be understood to interpret this book. First, they identify “outsiders” as “… those looking at the Christian faith from the outside. This group includes atheists, agnostics, those affiliated with a faith other than Christianity (such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism, and so on), and other unchurched adults who are not born-again Christians” (p. 17). They point out that the labels typically used by Christians to define those outside of the Christian faith (e.g., “lost”) contribute to the image problem and are de-humanizing. Therefore, they chose the term “outsider” as their generic and less abrasive term to describe those outside of the Christian faith.

Second, they use the term “unChristian faith” to describe the perceptions that outsiders have of Christians, that is to say that Christians do not truly represent authentic Christianity. They define “unChristian faith” using several factors. First, they describe the mindset of young adults (Mosaics and Busters, the focus group of the study) along the lines of cultural postmodernism – experience and image driven (pp. 21-23).

Second, they describe the growing hostility toward Christianity from outsiders because of bad images and experiences in the Church and with individual Christians. They identify two primary reasons why outsiders have significant, negative perceptions and images of Christians. First, outsiders feel hostile toward Christians, not because of our beliefs, but because of “… our ‘swagger,’ how we go about things and the sense of self-importance we project” (p. 26). Their perception is that Christians will dominate them, if allowed. The second reason for hostility toward Christians is that they perceive that Christians, especially evangelical Christians, have become “… famous for what we oppose, rather than who we are for” (p. 26). Outsiders perceive Christians as angrily and arrogantly defending certain issues (e.g., the definition of the family and the sanctity of life) while ignoring, or at least deemphasizing, other important issues, such as human rights, environmental concerns, and social justice.[2]

The authors identify the background (reasons) that leads to the unChristian faith (pp. 30 – 32). They argue that outsiders’ perceptions are not simply a result of spiritual resistance. There are several important influences that lead to these negative images. First, the majority of young outsiders have attended church at some point in their lives and had relationships with Christians. Second, the secular media is silently shaping their lives. Third, they have experienced painful encounters in the church that leads to these negative images and perceptions of Christianity. Outsiders “… have had very personal experiences, frustrations, and hurts, as well as devastating conversations and confrontations” (p. 32). Therefore, Mosaic and Buster outsiders have a difficult time following Jesus because of their negative experiences with Christ-followers.

According to the authors’ research, not only are the perceptions of outsiders important, these perceptions are a concern of young Christ-followers as well (pp. 33-35). Many of the Christian respondents expressed concern about the negative image that Christianity holds in contemporary culture. In fact, many young believers are hesitant to admit that they are Christians because they fear it would limit their ability to develop relationships with outsiders and would invalidate their message. Because of the mindset of young adults, bad experiences with Christians, and the negative perceptions that result, the authors offer their propositions for changing the image of the Christianity.

The authors argue that there are several reasons why it is important for the Church of Jesus Christ to understand and address the perception of the unChristian faith. First, they argue that the image problem is significant. In fact, it is so significant that, if not addressed immediately and effectively, it will affect the ability of Christians to do ministry for years to come (p. 11). Second, they argue that if the Church is truly interested in effectively communicating and expressing Christ to the younger generations, then it will have to take these perceptions seriously and understand the intensity of the hostility with which younger adults view Christianity (p. 11). They are quick to acknowledge that the Church is not responsible for outsiders’ decisions, “…but we are accountable when our actions and attitudes – misrepresenting a holy, just, and loving God – have pushed outsiders away” (p. 14). Therefore, they remind the Church that God cares about outsiders and wants us to pay attention to them. Third, they argue that paying attention to the perceptions of outsiders is important because what people think about Christians influences how they respond to us, which, in turn, should force us to examine our behaviors and attitudes objectively. Furthermore, because outsiders’ attitudes about Christians can change, we should change our behaviors and attitudes so that there are fewer barriers for outsiders to experience Christ (pp. 37-38).

For each of the broad perceptions held by outsiders, the authors attempted to provide simple solutions to change those perceptions. They acknowledge that our faith “grates against a morally relativistic culture” (p. 36), which implies that even our best efforts may not change the perspectives of some. However, their central solution to these perceptions can be summed up in the tension that exists between product vs. process. For each of the major perceptions (e.g., antihomosexual, judgmental, etc.), the underlying solution is a focus on a process of evangelism and discipleship. This implies ongoing relationships and conversations with outsiders through which Christ-followers seek to present a relationship with Christ as a journey, not simply an event or a product.

It is clear that the authors do not assume to offer a definite solution to changing the perceptions of outsiders or claim to have comprehensively defined the problem. They recognize the complexity and ambiguity of our culture. Nevertheless, the stated goal of the authors is to present their finding as a catalyst for objective reflection on the behaviors of the Church and how those behaviors and attitudes drive younger generations away. Whereas they provide suggestions to initiate the conversation inside and outside the faith, it is clear that they do not claim to have all the answers (which is refreshing).

However, Kinnaman and Lyons provide concrete expressions to confirm the suspicions that Christian leaders have held by providing credible evidence beyond the anecdotal responses that are heard in our everyday experiences with outsiders. They solve a significant problem by clearly describing the most common images of our faith. This is important for leaders because it provides us with a place of objectivity from which to work.

REFLECTION

This book has several primary strengths. First, their method for presenting their findings is clear, concise, relevant, and demands a response. This book is relevant to a broad range of ministries in the Church. It is clearly relevant to those churches whose missional focus groups are Mosaics and Busters. Likewise, it is especially important for church leaders of older, traditional churches to understand why they are not attracting young adults any longer. The information that is presented forces the reader (especially a person like me that holds to conservative theological and methodological interpretations of scripture) to examine our behaviors and how they influence the clarity or distortion of the message. Often, I found myself angry, which was quite clearly the intent of the authors – to drive Christians to examine our lives objectively.

Second, it is an excellent tool for Christian ministry because it identifies significant barriers that exist to effect ministry. It helps the reader reorder priorities in ministry by taking the emphasis off of product and onto process. Because it tended to make me angry and defensive, it forced me to ask objective questions about my method of ministry and how that method blurs or distorts the message. In other words, this book serves to remind the Christian that deeper should always be more important than bigger.

On the other hand, there are three significant weaknesses in the authors’ arguments. First, the authors insist that we should be paying attention to the perceptions of outsiders because these perceptions have developed as a result of bad experiences. The authors provide a few first-hand recollections from those that were interviewed. However, the authors seem to have made a generalization about these “bad experiences” without providing a more explicit summary of the exact nature of these “bad experiences.” I have a suspicion that some of these “bad experiences” may simply be the challenge of living a life of holiness. The gospel, in many respects, is counter-cultural. Space does not permit the level of theological argument needed to defend this proposition; but suffice it to say that, in my experience, conviction from the Holy Spirit is usually a “bad experience.”

Second, they clearly deemphasize the spiritual struggle that exists for the souls of humans and explicitly place the source of the problem squarely on the shoulders of the Church. In several instances while reading, I found myself not really sure that I want to be a Christian any longer because apparently I, a member of the body of Christ, am the real enemy in our culture. By deemphasizing the spiritual struggle that truly exists, the authors’ propositions imply that Christ has failed because his chosen instrument to transform culture has failed. Without denying the reality of behavioral and attitude barriers in the Church that prevent people from experiencing faith, hope, and love, I insist that the Church is not a delinquent child. It is, and will continue to be, under the sovereign leadership of Christ.

Third, I am concerned that the authors have used a secular “filter” (i.e., “image” or “reputation”) to propose how we do ministry. There is a problem with using a desire that is embraced by cultural postmodernism: image is too closely associated with consumption. I tend to agree with David Wells: “Consumption is not only about our material needs but also about self-understanding and self-projection. The danger is … that the meaning we adduce from the things accumulated can drift loose from reality. Image can dominate substance, appearance can substitute for reality, and the staging of a self may end up trumping the real thing.”[3] Image is not real. It is only an image. The problem is trying to correct something that is not real. This creates a problem in ministry when a Christian leader tries to correct perceptions instead of correcting the real behavioral and attitude problems in a particular church. A young, enthusiastic pastor could read this book and chase images and focus on “self-projection” and end up “trumping the real thing.” In other words, when we focus on “image” and “reputation,” the danger is that we become consumer-driven and elevate what is “cool” over what is real and eternal. A pastor can follow all of the suggestions in this book and still be superficial because they have placed their hope of “success” in something that is not authentic.

Nevertheless, the strengths of this book far outweigh the weaknesses, and it is an incredibly valuable tool for ministry. The first and most important value to my ministry is that it provides a more specific and reliable understanding of the barriers that prevent us from effectively reaching our community. It is important for each of the leaders on my staff and elder team to understand how our behaviors and attitudes can directly prevent us from establishing meaningful ministry in our context. In other words, this book’s primary value is for self-reflection and discussion that leads to a greater understanding of the mission of God and the barriers to fulfilling that mission.

Second, I value the discussion on faith formation as a response to the perception that Christians are too focused on getting converts. I find that they accurately describe the mindset of the faith tradition in which I was raised – if you just have a personal “experience” with Christ, then you will be fine. Unfortunately, this narrow focus on an experience leads to a lack of depth in a Christian’s life. The authors’ argument is that the Church should take the focus off of an event and, instead, “… become a catalyst and environment for genuine and sustainable spiritual transformation” (p. 80). They define the process of spiritual formation as “… the passions that should define a Christ follower” (p. 80):

· worshipping God intimately and passionately

· engaging in spiritual friendships with other believers

· pursuing faith in the context of family

· embracing intentional forms of spiritual growth

· serving others

· investing time and resources in spiritual pursuits

· having faith-based conversations with outsiders

I notice two very important implications from this list. First, these passions are based on core practices to become more Christ-like and take a step away from traditional core values, such as dogmatic, theological paradigms and denominational programs. The second implication of this process of ministry is that it takes an incredible of amount of faith, patience, and commitment to relationships for there to be sustainable faith formation. By faith, I mean that these core practices place the work of transformation solely in the hands of the Holy Spirit and away from the numbers and event driven cajoling and manipulation from charismatic evangelists. In other words, these core practices avoid the use of being “born-again,” perhaps due to the “baggage” associated with that term. Thus, it requires patience and longsuffering as a disciple grows up in Christ and requires a commitment to the relationship despite the “messiness” of life. This is a challenge in my context of ministry because of the traditional value of the “born-again” experience at the “altar-call.” Moving away from confrontation to conversation is a significant paradigm shift that could take older generations some time to embrace.

The third major value of this book to my ministry is to ask, “How can the timeless truths of holiness, righteousness, and redemption be reframed to declare those truths by what we are for rather than what we are against?” It is pointless to preach from the pulpit and rail against issues like abortion and homosexuality because “… despite more sermons on the subject from the pulpit and more emphasis on political engagement, Mosaic and Buster churchgoers remain unconvinced that the homosexual lifestyle is a problem for society” (p. 101). This type of polemic is simply antagonistic and counter-productive. Therefore, these perceptions force to me address the tone and thrust of the methods that we use to proclaim the message. While never compromising the message, I must evaluate how to adjust the method to include the desired goal of these timeless truths. For example, instead of preaching against divorce, advocate for healthy families and actually provide environments for families to grow spiritually, relationally, and emotionally.

CONCLUSION

Kinnaman and Lyons’ unChristian is a must-read for the pastor and church leadership that are serious about providing ministry to younger generations while remaining faithful to the essential teachings of scripture. The methods that were effective in reaching previous generations that generally had a biblical worldview are simply not relevant and are being perceived as antagonistic and avoided by the younger generations in the United States. By understanding and creatively applying the findings in this book, Christian leaders can once again become a light to the Mosaics and Busters. The cost is too great to avoid it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kinnaman, David and Gabe Lyons. unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity . . . and Why it Matters. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Wells, David F. “Christian Discipleship in a Postmodern World.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51/1 (March 2008): 19-33.

---

[1] David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, unChristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity . . . and Why it Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007).

[2] See Mark Rodgers, “The New Political Frontier,” in Kinnaman and Lyons, 177.

[3] David F. Wells, “Christian Discipleship in a Postmodern World,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51/1 (March 2008): 23.