Faith in Context

Has the Megachurch Idea Peaked?

Two items in the news this weekend tell me that the megachurch concept has peaked in American culture. From here on out it will decline, but probably never disappear.

First, the Crystal Cathedral, arguably the original megachurch, has passed to the ownership of the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County (California) and has been renamed as a Catholic cathedral. The megachurch started by Robert Schuller is at an end after about a half century.

Second, Pastor Creflo Dollar was arrested on Friday night for beating his 15-year-old daughter. He has been a primary example of the "prosperity gospel" and African American megachurches. He will inevitably go downhill from this event despite his denial and defiance on the events in question.

This is probably as clear a marker as we will have on this trend in our culture. The idea of the megachurch will become less attractive and slowly enter into decline. But, it is unlikely to ever disappear alltogther. There will always be a strand of Christianity anchored in the culture of the affluent, suburban consumer even once the Baby Boom has passed from the world.

What will come next? There are several options already here: (1) the house church; (2) small, missional groups; (3) very traditional congregations with 35 to 125 in attendance each week and a return to practices that are hundreds of years old; (4) surviving mid-size congregations that have renewed themselves by reinventing their worship and outreach activities and reaffirmed their connection to a denomination; and (5) experimental ministries of many kinds.

American Religious Profile: New Data

A new Gallup Poll has been released asking Americans about their religion. Remember, this is not based on official membership lists, but this is the self-identification of a random sample of adults across the country.

A third of American adults identify themselves as Protestant or with some Protestant denomination. One in four (24 percent) identify themselves as Catholic. Two percent identify themselves as Jewish and one-half of one percent as Muslim. A total of 17 percent said that they identify with no religion or simply refused to answer the question (15 percent and two percent). The others identified with many small religions generally considered not Christian.

A 57 percent majority clearly sees themselves as Christians, but the United States continues to edge closer to a time when that majority will disappear. It is a melting icecube. Despite the claims of some propagandists, the U.S. was never a Christian nation, always valuing religious liberty and pluralism over the established faiths of Europe. But in the 20th Century it did come into a time when the majority of Americans identified with one Christian denomination or another. How long will that consensus last?

American Catholics Hear a New Liturgy Today

This weekend the revised liturgy is being introduced in Roman Catholic parishes across the English-speaking world. It is the first time that the English version of the mass has been revised since it was introduced after Vatican Council II. One of the major changes in Catholic religion made at that council in the 1960s was conducting worship in the language of the lay people. Incidentally, this was a very old issue at the time which got its start during the Protestant Reformation.

Many Catholics in America and Europe believe that this revised English liturgy simply re-introduces ideas and language from the old Latin liturgy; that it is a triumph for conservative Catholics who would like to erase the changes resulting from Vatican II. Bishop Donald Trautman, former chairman of the U.S. bishops' committee on liturgy was quoted in USA Today earlier this week labeling the new liturgy "elitist" and incomprehensible to the average Catholic. He sees its introduction as prelude to a "pastoral disaster."

Much of the change in the liturgy involves the insertion of English translations of the old, Latin mass. There is a line-by-line comparison available on line if you want to see all of the details, most of which is obscure to anyone not trained in theology and church history. It includes more direct statements of a number of ideas that were never officially removed from Catholic theology, but have been largely ignored by pastors and people in recent decades.

This event demonstrates how difficult it is for religious institutions to reform themselves. Tradition has a power all its own. The center of gravity seems to always shift away from the "new thing" that the Holy Spirit may be calling God's people to and back to the old paths. The Catholic Church is not the only religion that suffers from this disability.

Will Christ Return on May 21?

Harold Camping is getting major media coverage with his prediction that Jesus will return next week. To me it is surprising because he made a similar prediction at least once in the past and it proved false. I am reminded that William Miller (or at least people around him) made three different predictions in 1843-44 before giving up.

Let me be very clear about where I am personally on this topic. I would be delighted if Jesus were to return this coming weekend. I would be even happier if He were to come back today! There has been too much bloodshed, too many wars, too many innocent women and children abused, too much self-centered oppression of the poor, too many people starved to death, too many deaths from cancer and AIDS. It is time for this world to come to an end and for Christ to establish His kingdom as He promised so clearly and simply in John's gospel, Chapter 14, verses 1 through 3. It is past time for the vision God shared at the end of the Bible in Revelation 21 of His holy city where there be no more suffering, poverty or injustice! Let it begin now, even before I post this piece.

But Jesus went to great lengths in Matthew 24-25 to patiently explain to His followers that we must be patient for God to do this wonderful thing in His own good time. His time is not our time, and Harold Camping has proved himself to be a very poor student of the Bible. He has missed the clearly statements from Jesus that "no one knows the day." (Matthew 24:36) What it boils down to is that you have to choose between believing Jesus or believing Camping. It is an easy choice. Camping is not the Son of God and he did not prove himself ultimately trustworthy by dying for me on the cross. Sorry, Harold; your nuts. I choose Jesus.

But this blog is not about me making faith statements; it is about trends in culture and their impact on religion. The fact that National Public Radio and major, national newspapers have covered Camping's prediction indicates that there is growing interest in the topic. Journalists have also pointed out the recent proliferation of apocalyptic themes in movies, television, and novels. It is probably more about the economic crisis and the recent cluster of earthquakes and other natural disasters than it is real, spiritual change. Nonetheless is provides an important opportunity for the followers of Jesus to share share His promise to return and the world He intends to create on this planet. That is the bottom line of the whole story, the reason for the gospel.

"I believe in a forgiving God."

This statement by a politician recently gives insight into the religious beliefs of most Americans. He campaigns for "traditional family values" but he carried on an extramarital affair while his wife was dying of cancer; something he has never publicly confessed or admitted to asking forgiveness for. Pressed about this hypocrisy recently, he said, "I believe in a forgiving God ..."

This is an essentially nonpartisan viewpoint. Most Americans believe that God is more forgiving of their favorite sins than He is of other people's favorite sins. Is it just me or has this attitude become more pronounced in recent decades? The sins for which a person has a weakness are seen as something that God easily forgives. The sins for which other people have a weakness are blown up as terrible, dangerous and things that God cannot easily forgive.

Isn't this precisely what Christ pointed out with His reprimand of those who are so focused on the splinter in the other person's eye that they cannot see the plank in their own eye? If so, how should we relate to all of the pious propaganda being dished out currently, much of it with strategic twists related to "culture war" and politics? Would Jesus take this seriously in terms as ethical teaching, or would He ignore it as nonsense?

Sociologically, this is another indicator of how shallow the faith and values of most Americans has become. There is a Christian religious veneer in American culture, but when you take a second look much of it is disconnected from the real teachings of Christ. One example of this is the fact that the majority of Americans believe that there is a Bible text which says, "God helps those who help themselves." Of course, that is really from Poor Richard's Almanac and states a viewpoint that God abhors, especially because it often takes the form of people "helping themselves" to what justly belongs to others or, in God's eyes, should be shared with those who are poorer, weaker or more marginalized.

 

Change is Possible: Vatican Changes on Condom Position

To those who despair that large religious institutions reach a point where they cannot change, the news of the last 24 hours may be unbelievable. Nonetheless, it has happened. The head of the Roman Catholic Church has announced a change in its position relative to condom use. For a very long time the use of condoms has been seen as an immoral act because of the Catholic doctrine that anything that prevents conception in sex is the moral equivalent of murder. This is based in a belief that at the moment of conception, regardless of the meager biological reality, the immediate presence of a "soul" means that a fully human person is present.

The moving part here is the definition of "soul," a topic on which Bible scholars and theologians part ways. Officially, the Catholic Church continues to hold onto a definition that most Bible scholars, even some accepted by the Church, agree is out-dated and reflects a reading of the Biblical languages that is no longer acceptable.

Does this step mean that there will be some progress on the Biblical studies front? Probably not. The Pope has made it clear that the reason for the change has to do more with ethics. Something otherwise theologically undesirable (condom use, in this case) can be accepted when it causes even larger evil (millions of deaths from AIDS, in this case). Are there other issues, perhaps in other faiths, that could be subjected to the same analysis?

Simple Idea: What if the church actually lived as Jesus did?

What would it look like if Christianity actually lived according to the principles of Jesus Christ? (Notice the implicit admission that Christians do not live out their religious values.) This is the central thesis of a new book by a Quaker pastor, Philip Gulley. (If the Church Were Christian, HarperOne) It provides fascinating insights for believers who are courageous enough to think honestly about the way we actually function. Gulley makes ten key points, which I paraphrase here. So far as I can see, these principles are solidly Biblical, although I do not agree with every application he makes.

• Jesus would be a model for living more than an object of worship
• Affirming the potential of others would be more important than condemning their brokenness
• Reconciliation would be valued over passing judgment
• Gracious behavior would be more important than right belief
• Inviting questions would happen more often than giving answers
• Support for personal study would be more important than denominational uniformity
• Meeting needs would be the mission, not maintaining institutions
• Serving as peacemakers would be valued over protecting power
• Christians would care more about love and less about sex
• This life would be equally important with the afterlife*

*In fact, the resurrection would be seen and lived out as a continuity of life instead of a traditional (and largely unbiblical) conception of an "after life."

Why do we not have the courage and integrity to live truly Christlike lives? Why do believers and Christian organizations so often behave in ways that Christ does not intend? There is, of course, a clear answer in Scripture: it is called "sin." And, as Jesus pointed out, it is easier to see the smallest infraction in others than it is to see the much larger hypocrisy in our own lives ... especially when it comes to sinful behavior backed by congregational or denominational tradition. If the Body of Christ is to regain influence in our world today, it must undergo real reformation, as well as spiritual revival. Are you up for that ... really?

 

Burning the Koran Part 2

When I wrote about the plans of a small, nondenominational "Christian" group in Florida to burn copies of the Koran, I never anticipated it would become the international event that it has. There are some important learnings from this ghastly story. But first, let me restate what I said before: This is an unChristlike activity (the theological term is sin) that betrays everything Christ taught. Because this little congregation is not affiliated with any denomination there is no one to hold Pastor Terry Jones accountable, but that does not change the facts.

Anyone who doubts that religion is still an important force in our world is ignoring the way this story about a very small, quasi-Christian group has engaged world leaders and the news media around the globe. There is strong evidence that religion is an even more powerful force that it was as short a time as five years ago. People (even if they deny it to themselves) have a strong spiritual dimension. Faith and values are core to what it means to be human. The current story simply reveals how people use religion to act out their deepest feelings, good and bad.

There have always been some religious people and organizations who use acts of violence and torture to display their beliefs in a twisted manner. The largest faiths and religious organizations on the globe have only to be honest with themselves about their history to find such events. The current story is really a micro-event perpetrated by a small-minded man compared to the long, bloody history associated with extreme factions in the major religions. Just search the term "holy war," which really makes as much sense as "chaste adultery" or "harmless poison."

The real tragedy is that God is not deceived. He knows that these actions are sin no matter how deeply Terry Jones and others like him may feel that they are doing God's will. Religion, after all, is a human invention; the actions toward God by fallen human beings. Divinity is not involved in the activities of religion, good or bad. Read Isaiah 58. God has clearly stated that He is not impressed by purely religious activities, but only by people who do His work in the world, compassion, social justice; creative, ethical and loving lives. A great many people will find in the Final Judgment that what they went to their graves thinking were righteous acts implementing God's will are actually evil in His sight. See Matthew 25.

The most important lesson from this tragic story, I think, is the importance of careful analysis of religious faith to make sure that what you believe is, in fact, based in Divine reality. This story teaches all of us that we need to carefully search for the right faith. We need to take sacred writings, theological reflections and historic study of religion seriously, even if we are among those who choose not to believe in any religion. Oops! Did I go to preaching an evangelistic sermon? Please forgive me.

Trend Predictions 30 Years Later

In Publishers Weekly in December 1969 a book editor for Westminster Press wrote about 25 trends and made predictions for the next quarter of a century:

• Conservative Protestants and Catholics will come together as will liberal Protestants and Catholics. [largely true today]
• The church will interest only those over 45 years of age. [largely true today]
• Church memberships will decline, but the remaining members will be more involved and committed. [true today for many denominations, depending no how you measure things]
• Construction of large church facilities will come to an end. [tastes in church architecture have changed significantly, but megachurches are constructing "big box" facilities that look more like a Lowe's or a community college than an identifiably religious building]
• Integration of all minorities will become a fact in the churches. [I can understand why this seemed likely in 1969, but, in fact, ethnocentric patterns have reasserted themselves.]
• The churches will give up their tax-exempt status. [Are you kidding?]
• Sermons are out and so is the Sunday morning worship service. [This is not markedly true, but there has been creeping change in this direction. Megachurches have worship services at various times throughout the week and house churches often meet on a weekday evening instead of the weekend. Video clips, drama, more music and a less preaching style have modified the sermon, but not really replaced it. And the traditional pattern still persists for a significant number of people, despite the fact that fewer Americans participate.]
• The church stands in great danger of losing the intellectual elite of this country. [Again, this has happened to a degree, although it is certainly not 100 percent.]
• Resurgent interest in formal worship is only momentary. [I would have to say dead wrong on this one. It is 40 years later and a significant minority of young adults are more interested in liturgical worship styles than ever.]
• The church of the year 2000 will not be recognizable by anyone from the 1960s.

This last prediction requires a longer comment. I was very active in the church in the 1960s as a teenager in a leadership position in youth ministry and then as a ministerial student at La Sierra University. Some things have changed significantly, some of them in ways I would never have predicted. But other things seem so unchanged that I could swear there has been no movement whatsoever.

The thing about change in a social institution is that when you are along for the journey, it is very difficult to really see the changes. You can visualize this phenomenon if you have ever been on a train alongside another train. If both trains are standing still and then one begins to move, it is very difficult to see at first which one is moving and which one is still standing still. Change is often an optical illusion. The world is full of people who have a lot to say, but are not very good observers.

My source for the excerpt from Publishers Weekly is Martin Marty's newsletter on religion and culture, which unfortunately is going out of business at the end of the year.

Islamic Community Center in Lower Manhattan

The U.S. President is right; this is really a very simple issue. If we were to introduce a rule that a religion cannot have a building on private property within a mile of an incident in which adherents of that religion killed someone, then hundreds (perhaps thousands) of churches would have to be torn down, especially Baptist churches in the southern United States. Those who oppose the Islamic Community Center being developed in lower Manhattan are simply displaying their religious prejudice.

The notion that Islam, as a religion, is responsible for the horrific events of Sept. 11, 2001, is no more factual than the idea that the Baptist faith is responsible for tens of thousands of African Americans lynched or killed in slavery by people who attended Baptist churches. There are always "facts" that are alleged to support every prejudice. That some people believe these fictions passionately does not make them real. Religious prejudice in particular is always associated with a cluster of plausible accusations.

What is most amazing to me is that some of the same political forces who have been complaining that zoning laws and zoning bureaucrats are prejudice against religious facilities and campaigning for a law to exempt religious buildings from all zoning regulation in the U.S. are now opposed to the proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan. Somehow they want to eat their cake and still have it around.