Anyone who has spent much time around Christian literature and the work of the church knows that there is a great propensity to develop terms which receive pop culture status in certain circles. Words like ’emerging’, ‘organic’, and ‘purpose-driven’. Another term which is quickly climbing this later, even into the secular realm, is ‘post-Christian’. Blog posts and magazine articles and books are all coming out with ‘post-Christian’ emblazoned into their heading. Yet the danger that always comes with such sexy phrases is the distinct possibility that they will be used so widely as to end up meaning a whole bunch of nothing.
With that in mind, I came across a post yesterday on a popular SBC site in which the author seemed to take issue with the idea of ‘post-Christianity’, questioning if a supposed ‘post-Christian’ turn is really the crisis within the church that many people are claiming it to be. Specifically, he acknowledges an idea of ‘post-Christianity’ within the culture but argues that this state has existed for several decades and that it is arrogant to assume that the church needs to reform its mission to better deal with it.
My intention with this article is to first define ‘post-Christianity’, second, to show that such an idea of ‘post-Christianity’ is existent in the American culture today, and finally, to show that the American church does indeed need to make evangelistic and missiological reforms in order to more appropriately engage the present ‘post-Christian’ context.
To start with, I believe we can look to the writings and surroundings of Dr. Albert Mohler to get a good working definition of ‘post-Christian’. In the Newsweek article to which he contributed entitled The End of Christian America, ‘post-Christian’ is defined as “a period of time that follows the decline of the importance of Christianity in a region or society.” They go further to state that “The post-Christian narrative is radically different [than the Christian narrative]; it offers spirituality, however defined, without binding authority. . . . It is based on an understanding of history that presumes a less tolerant past and a more tolerant future, with the present as an important transitional step.” An important feature of post-Christianity thus defined is the fact that it retains certain pieces of a Christian memory from previous Christian generations without any longer holding to the same Christian commitments. It is this characteristic which makes post-Christianity an important cultural component to deal with, if in fact it does exist.
So, does it exist? Is post-Christianity as featured above a sociological reality in America today? Statistically this would appear to be the case, as Dr. Mohler argues in the aforementioned Newsweek article. In it they discuss the fact that the percentage of Americans self-identifying as “Christian” has fallen 10-points in the last 20 years. Combining with that the fact that Barna has a number of times shown that the number of “Christians” compared with the number of “Evangelicals” (as defined by affirming all in a set of eight orthodox criteria which seemingly all Southern Baptists would hold to) can differ by as radical a ratio as 22 to 1. That means that, assuming the maximal boundaries of the statistical research, it is possible that only roughly 5% of all Americans actually hold to faith in Biblical Christianity. (Conservative estimates tend to place this between 10- and 15% of the American population, still substantially lower than the self-identifying group.) Thus, in the last decade approximately one-tenth of Americans have decided to abandon Christianity, choosing instead to move towards various types of agnosticism or atheism. As well, for all intents and purposes, three-quarters of Americans claim Christianity but only at most one-fifth could be said to hold to a biblical faith, meaning that about half of all Americans nominally abide by a faith which pragmatically works its way out in assorted ungodly ways in their lives. This clearly seems to fit within the mold of what we defined post-Christian to be.
But what if we ignore the statistical evidence (as the author of the post inspiring this one casts aside the SBC “pollster prophets”), what can we glean from the anecdotal evidence we all have gathered? I will recount one recent experience, and you can tell me how often you’ve seen this:
A couple of months back I went out on a Monday night visitation with another man from my church to see a family that had attended our service the day before. Our goal was to approach them with the gospel, assess if they believed in it, and if they did not to share it with them in an evangelistic manner. The method by which our pastor had asked us to share the gospel with them was through using the “Bridge to Life” tract put out by the Navigators. So, we arrive at this person’s house and sit down with them and begin to talk about their background. The man tells us that he has been attending another church for a few years but wanted to check out our church because he was looking for better options for his children. He talks about the message and our pastor and so finally we get to the point where we ask him the key question, “If you were to die and stand before God tonight, what would you say to him is the reason that he should let you into his heaven?” The man proceeded to answer this by telling us that he does not think about heaven and believes that every person should live in accordance with their conscience.
Recognizing this as a troubling response we share with him from the gospel tract. On each page there is an illustration and a question to be asked, “What is the canyon that separates us from God?,” “What is the bridge that is offered over this canyon?,” “How can we cross that bridge?,” and to each question we asked the man knew every answer that we were looking for even though by all appearances he was a non-believer.
This is picture perfect post-Christianity and is a scenario repeated numerous times daily in the American church. People who fill up the pews, no all the answers, and yet in there hearts are no more than functional pagans. They have the Christian knowledge, the Christian memory, and yet practice”spirituality . . . without binding authority.” That is our definition of post-Christianity and I see no way in which we can deny that that is what exists predominantly in our culture today.
Now to the big question: if the culture we are engaging is largely post-Christian, is there anything about our evangelistic and missiological practices that we need to change in order to more effectively reach it? I think it is important that we all work on the assumption that the church should seek to obey the principle taught by Paul in 1 Corinthians 9.19-23 in presenting the gospel in a culturally appropriate manner, or else this conversation will never get off the ground. Then, with that assumption in place, I would argue that yes, there are several important evangelistic and missiological changes that we need to make in order to most effectively reach the post-Christian culture in which we live.
Among these are preaching in a manner that assumes less about the audience’s a priori biblical comprehension and evangelizing in a way that more acutely tests the heart of the hearer and not just challenging them to recite a formula followed by praying a canned prayer. Only 5% of people actually believe they are going to hell, so asking, “If you were to die tonight, where would you spend eternity?” is not going to get us very far anymore.
As well, we need greater emphasis on what is actually in the Great Commission (Matthew 28.18-20), namely “mak[ing] disciples” and “teaching [people] to observe all that [Christ] has commanded,” and less emphasis on what’s not in it, namely getting decisions. People in the post-Christian culture are all about making emotional decisions, but when it comes to walking it out they opt for choosing their own steps to peace with God.
So, what about the initial concern: “Where do young Baptists get the idea that the older generation is crassly uninformed concerning our ‘post-Christian’ culture?” It is from the church! Look at our churches– the way in which they preach; the way in which they evangelize; the way in which they disciple-is it effective for reaching post-Christians, for reaching people who know all the answers and yet still feel justified in following their own way to (G/g)od? I do not believe we can honestly assess ourselves as being geared this way. And please don’t hear me wrong; what I’m advocating is deeper Christianity, not shallower as those who propose “contextualizing” are often accused of. I believe the church needs to be more responsible in the gospel message they preach, more intentional in the evangelistic lives they live, and more devout in their study of God’s Word.
That means doing it from the heart, not simply constructing laws and procedures which “good Christians” are to follow. This is our malaise. The church has grown lazy and out of our laziness we have essentially immunized the culture to the gospel. Unless we can recapture the gospel as something life-changing, something worth laying down our life for, and not just a verbal ascent to some FAITH outline, this present post-Christian age is hopeless for us to reach.
Maybe the post-Christian age is, as the original post claimed, nothing new, but that is saddest of all, because that means that for several decades the church has been neglecting to fulfill it’s mission as faithfully as possible by knowing those to whom we are taking the only message that is sufficient to save men’s lives.
Some of your observations are similar to ones I made while studying for my SS lesson this morning. You said we should be “evangelizing in a way that more acutely tests the heart of the hearer.” I think that is profoundly correct.
One of the (many) problems with modern evangelism is that we seldom tell anyone to count the cost of following Christ (Luke 14:25-32). What a disservice that is, both to the world and to the church.
Barry Wallaces last blog post..Andrew Peterson: “Family Man”
Hi Todd, “Unless we can recapture the gospel as something life-changing, something worth laying down our life for, and not just a verbal ascent to some FAITH outline, this present post-Christian age is hopeless for us to reach.” I think the gospel captures us. And it is lifechanging when it does so. We cannot manufacture the Spirit of God. He moves as He moves, as He chooses to move. We are only doing the introductions so to speak. And many times, it isn’t until we are at a crossroad, or backed against a wall, that we realize that the Gospel is worth laying down our lives–in fact, we recognize with greater clarity than ever that the Gospel IS our Life–our only life. I discovered this most greatly when I lost my son and saw my yearning for heaven meant more to me because of my son’s new residence, than the fact that my Savior resides there. Shame for the priority placement made me realize afresh, the reason I live is because of Him, and for Him. selahV
selahVs last blog post..LIVING UNDER THE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE
selahV, your honesty and humility are so refreshing. Thanks.
Todd, I hit ‘Submit’ before I explained the connection between my SS lesson and this post. One of the questions in my lesson asked:
A friend observes: “My goodness! Why did Paul have to suffer so much, so constantly? Is that going to happen to me if I decide to follow Christ?” How would you respond?
I answered by saying that in one sense Paul’s suffering was unique to Paul (Acts 9:16); but in general, the answer to the friend’s question is yes, you will suffer (2 Timothy 3:12). We should tell everyone to count the cost of following Christ.
Barry Wallaces last blog post..Andrew Peterson: “Family Man”
Barry, small is our suffering compared to our Lord’s. And yes, we will suffer, but God’s grace is sufficient to keep us in that suffering. And within the suffering we learn the complete dependence we have in Him and how very dependable He is. Then we are able to comfort others in their hours of suffering as we have been comforted in ours. Count it all joy when you face these things because through them God is working out His plan to perfect us and make us more patient, loving, kind, gentle, forgiving, and controlled.
It’s such a joy to know the Savior Who cares for us, Who has been through all we face. What amazing grace we own as ours. selahV
selahVs last blog post..LIVING UNDER THE ABUNDANCE OF GRACE
Todd,
One of the problems laid out at Advance09 is that our churches tend to be religious. Religious communities not Gospel communities. We miss the “one another” verses in the Christian life. So when we invite people to “church” that church needs to be a broken, Christ is strong in my weakness, Gospel community.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Mark Lamprechts last blog post..Advance09 Makes Local News
Yesterday I preached an ordination sermon in a church of the Sandy Creek Assn. Part of the idea of recapturing the spirit of the faith has to do with some vital insights into the period of the Great Awakenings and the origins of the Great Century of Missions. In any case, in my message involved at the heart of it three mysteries, namely, the mystery of the presence, the mystery of the theology, and the mystery of the humility. Morgan Edwards, a Baptist minister & historian who visited the association shortly before Shubal Stearn died, state, “I believe a preteratural ad invisible hand works in the assemblies of the Separate Baptists bearing down the human as was the case in Primitive Churches.I Cor.XIV.25.” I called attention to a few instances of that presence. Such presence is mandatory along with the theology and humility in order to deal with any post-Christian era. In England the state of morals, etc., were so bad that as one student of the period told me, “It was a practice of some to have sex in public in parks.” Then came Whitefield and Wesley and the First Great Awakening. In America Benjamin Franklin would describe Philadelphia after a visit be Whitefield in these words: “The whole world is grown religious.” People would be singing hymns, reading the Bible, praying. More could be said, but dealing with any decline in the Faith such as we now behold demands a spirit of brokenness along with a grasp of the theology, the truths, that God has provided for such situations.
Dr. James Willinghams last blog post..The Climax of the Reformation
Todd,
You, my young brother, have made a tired old man, who had a long, boring drive, strangely spring to life. All the time I thought I’d go to bed beat and now I’ve a good laugh to lay me down.
My challenge to the SBC Voices readers is, skip over to my post, start about half way down, and see if you can match my assertions there to the strange conclusions about my assertions here. I’d love to see what pops up.
Have a great night.
With that, I am…
Peter
peters last blog post..A Post-Christian World? How Delightfully Trite by Peter Lumpkins
Peter,
Did you not ask, “Where do young Baptists get the idea that the older generation is crassly uninformed concerning our ‘post-Christian’ culture?” My whole point here was to show that they (we) get that idea from the fact that the older generation seems to not comprehend the post-Christian culture, or if they do they have chosen to count it of no importance, which I believe to be a poor decision.
I am willing to give you, as you point out, that Schaeffer spoke on post-Christianity in the mid-to-late 20th century, but if he was speaking on the same deal I am speaking on here it makes the evangelical neglect of this by the older generation all the more atrocious.
Beyond this, your assertion that “our crisis centers down on the observable effect the ‘post-Christian’ culture has decidedly imposed upon the pre-post-Christian church,” offers nothing constructive to the argument. If the older generation feels that us “young bucks” are doing something so terribly wrong then where is the discipleship? As much offense as you took at my “go quietly into the night” comment, there is a point at which the older generation must entrust the legacy of faith to their younger counterparts. And if they feel we are woefully unprepared then it is their duty to train us by loving discipleship. Instead, what typically comes out is dire condemnation, mocking, and patronizing, none of which are going to help. Agreed?
Todd Buruss last blog post..Article on Post-Christianity Posted at SBC Voices
Todd,
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this. I’ll leave it to SBC Voices readers to take a look at my post and make up their own minds. However, here’s some of the things ignored:
First, Todd, if what I wrote assisted in “inspiring this one” I am glad I somehow provoked conversation. My difficulty is, what you have taken from my site morphed into an animal unidentifiable to me. I did not take issue with “post-Christianity’, nor do I know what you mean by that term (synonymous with post-Christian?), nor did I remotely address “if a supposed ‘post-Christian’ turn is really the crisis within the church that many people are claiming it to be.” Where did you get this? Not from my words, I presume. A) I specifically wrote, “I happen to believe as strongly as any twenty-thirty-something our culture is “post-Christian” B) Later, I asserted, “I think an acknowledgment of and appropriate response to our ‘”post-Christian” culture is not at all the center of our church-crisis in the 21C.” Neither A) nor B) squares with what you think I meant, Todd.
Second, you suggest I specifically acknowledged “an idea of ‘post-Christianity’ within the culture…” Again, I did not nor would not use the term ‘post-Christianity’ and have never read, to my recall, critics who have. Nor would I suggest post-Christian as an “idea within culture.” To the contrary, post-Christian IS culture.
Third, you write I argue an idea of ‘post-Christianity’ within the culture has existed for “for several decades and that it is arrogant to assume that the church needs to reform its mission to better deal with it.” A) I argued nothing. Zilch. Jack squat. What I did do was quote from F. Schaeffer. B) I’ll give you a shiny new nickel, Todd, for every time, in my post, you can show I suggested it’s “arrogant to assume that the church needs to reform its mission.”
Fourth, you suggest I apparently think we should “ignore the statistical evidence” because I allegedly cast the “pollster prophets” aside. That my statement was intended to provoke cautionary reflection on what I perceive as a premature anointing of pollsters as prophets could be denied by me only were I of a mind to deceive. I am guilty. Nonetheless, to suggest I intended by my statement we should “ignore the statistical evidence” is just goofy.
Fifth, from the comment to me, you asked, “Did you not ask, “Where do young Baptists get the idea that the older generation is crassly uninformed concerning our ‘post-Christian’ culture?” I did. But, Todd, for heavens’ sake, dude, you completely ignored the reason I asked the question, specifically spawned by a quote I gave from a pastor, and the fact I wasn’t making an argument, I was offering an example of what I called spiritual “butterfingers.”
Sixth, you write of F.Schaeffer, “if he was speaking on the same deal I am speaking on here it makes the evangelical neglect of this by the older generation all the more atrocious.” First, he decidedly was not speaking of what you’re speaking of here. For Schaeffer, ‘post-Christian’ encompassed a larger, broader issue than the way we do evangelism. Indeed, from what I understand from this post, Todd, a good reading of Schaeffer could be beneficial for us all.
Seventh, you judge my statement concerning our crisis “offers nothing constructive to the argument.” I think you have every right to weigh my assertions and come to conclusions, Todd. Good for you. It would be helpful, however, if, in the future, you would make careful distinctions. For, as a matter of fact, I would have been surprised if my statement would have contributed constructively to the argument or any argument for that matter because I was not making an argument nor attempting to contribute to one. To the contrary, I was raising questions, that’s all…questions to which I later admitted I have few solid answers presently. Interestingly, I come here, and it appears to be all figured out!
Last (I promise), since you brought up your very respectful, helpful “go quietly into the night” death-wish on us old cogs, you are right about discipling younger believers. I try. By no means am I perfect or have I been perfect but I try.
I’ve also learned through the years, Todd, when the Savior exhorts me to “feed My sheep,” He does not expect me to hold a gun on them.
As for the “typical” response from the older generation as “condemnation, mocking, and patronizing,” I’d have to say, I agree and disagree. I agree none of the three are helpful, I disagree that any of the three are typical.
With that, I am…
Peter
peters last blog post..A Post-Christian World? How Delightfully Trite by Peter Lumpkins
I don’t think this is about old verses young…as Peter has alleged. I think this is about the direction our country is moving. Our country has never been a SBC country…so in becoming post-Christian they’re not becoming post-SBC….so I don’t that is what it is about.
I am from the US (recently Christian society) and working in Africa (pre-Christian) and although the message stays the same the way in which it is manifested is different. The same holds true for those who live in the Christian “bubble” (trying to hold onto the Christian nation idea by creating little nations on the church campus) and are trying to interact with post-Christians. The message will never change but the delivery and view towards evangelism has to adapt.
All too often we associate style with message making the style equally as sacred. Once we learn to separate the message from style we’ll be able to effectively interact.
Grady,
Thanks. While I’m unsure the notorious ‘generational gap’ was a key allegation of anything major to do with my position on the thread, I’d say, if you are suggesting–when you deny “this is [not] about old verses young”–there is generational overlap, I don’t know of anybody who would disagree, least of all, me. On the other hand, if you are denying the presence of some basic, albeit very real generational differences, expressed in a variety of ways, I don’t know of too many in the current dialog (at least among vocal SBC leaders on both sides) who would drink your tea.
As for the ‘post-SBC’ comment, I’d need more to know toward what you’re referencing. That’s entirely new to me.
Nor does any person with whom I am friends, am familiar with their position, or who’ve written treatises concerning these issues of a mind to deny the distinction you make between the dynamic of gospel delivery and the fixity of gospel doctrine. Schaeffer, by the way, spoke much on this subject, citing the “form” on the one hand and “freedom” on the other.
Finally, Grady, you appear, as did our brother Todd, to come across, at least to me, as embracing a reductionistic solution to the current crisis; that is, if we can correct our inferior evangelistic methods, the crisis will be perhaps mostly solved. From the way I see things, that’s like swatting flies while missing the corpse.
With that, I am…
Peter
peters last blog post..A Post-Christian World? How Delightfully Trite by Peter Lumpkins
Peter,
I never claimed this was “the” solution to “the current crisis.” In fact, maybe we could discuss what “the current crisis” is. My assessment that we need to better understand and engage the post-Christian culture is part of the solution, a part a believe is crucial, but just a part nonetheless. There are sure to be other ecclesiological crises and maybe even a soteriological crisis here and there that must be taken on. This is simply meant as a glance at how we could more effectively complete the mission of the church among the unbelieving world.
Todd Buruss last blog post..Our Brother’s Keeper- A Devotion on Joshua 7
Todd,
Thanks. For what it’s worth, actually, I think my description to Grady of your post’s conclusions was that it came across to me as embracing a reductionistic solution to the current crisis, not as “the” solution to “the” crisis.
Furthermore, having a conversation was precisely the reason I raised the questions on my OP. But, for that here and now, is just not in the stars for me, I’m afraid.
I trust your day well and evening better.
With that, I am…
Peter
peters last blog post..A Post-Christian World? How Delightfully Trite by Peter Lumpkins