George Barna, prominent pollster focusing on evangelical issues, has identified these six “megathemes” of change in contemporary Christian life in the US —
1. The Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate.
2. Christians are becoming more ingrown and less outreach-oriented.
3. Growing numbers of people are less interested in spiritual principles and more desirous of learning pragmatic solutions for life.
4. Among Christians, interest in participating in community action is escalating.
5. The postmodern insistence on tolerance is winning over the Christian Church.
6. The influence of Christianity on culture and individual lives is largely invisible.
Barna offers additional explanation here.
Now, Barna’s statistical interpretation has been called into question at times. I’m just not willing to take his word for these things. But neither am I willing to dismiss inconvenient, unpleasant news just because it’s inconvenient and unpleasant.
Read his explanation and then consider: Do Barna’s conclusions reflect the reality you experience? We all, of course, have some experience that’s consistent with Barna’s conclusions, but is Barna right as to our overall, more general experience?
As far as being theologically literate, or not so, it would depend on what one considers as needful or helpful theology. In doing word studies and the ultra-detailed back ground of certain doctrines, this may somewhat be the case. But I see many Christians who are laying aside the importance of "dry as dust" studies and becoming involved in writings that make scripture more alive for the present. Besides, there are good living studies that include what the doctrines meant to the early church.
Tolerance, progressive and liberal are words that have frightened evangelicals over the years. In the past the best way to make people in a conservative denomination or congregation seek the destruction of another was to pin one of these terms on them. But I truly believe that the more evangelicals have let themselves discuss spiritual matters with progressives the more they have come to see that one can have a heart and mind that is fixed on Christ, can have a desire to live the words and life of chirst, yet, still see the love and child of God in all others.
It is not the 1950's anymore, and the pendulum never swings back to the exact spot from which it came. It brings with it what it gathers; to understand this can be very healthy.
In my personal experience, several of these – specifically #s 1, 3, and 5 – are true. However, I would say that #2 is somewhat contradicted by #4. Community action might not be outreach, but it also most certainly can be and often is. I would have to say in regard to #6 that what we see in modern culture could and would be extremely worse if there were no influence of Christianity – and I believe it would be very visible.
1. The Christian Church is becoming less theologically literate.
" Further, a growing majority believe the Holy Spirit is a symbol of God's presence or power, but not a living entity."
Could it be that the Church is just becoming more theologically correct.?
What ? !!
It seems we need a different approach to TEACHING.
The examples Barna cited to illustrate his first point make me think we've been bucking the trend in our area (mid-south, USA). There seems to me to be a greater awareness of the traditional meaning of Easter, that it's much more than an egg delivering bunny rabbit. Perhaps it's just the circles I move within, (I'm church of Christ born and bred) but in my sphere there seems to be a greater seeking to incorporate our Christian faith. And there seems to be an increasing awareness of the Comforter in our lives. More and more of us are seeking His power in our lives. He's no mere symbol to us!
Outreach efforts are actually increasing now. I am personally aware of and peripherally involved in several recovery programs promoted by churches within an hours drive radius from my home. Community outreach in general is a focus with these congregations, including food and clothing programs, promotion of special services/classes to the community at large, etc. Personal faith and spiritual development are a focus as well.
Compartmentalization is a problem. Our rat-race oriented culture, saturated with texting, blogging, MTV and the Super Bowl is a problem. However, I have seen an increased interest in pragmatic spiritual growth that is fostered by contemplation/prayer, solitude, silence, etc. Perhaps that is due to the interests I stated above – recovery strategy tends to be very simple and practical, and the contemplative/prayer disciplines are foundational to that strategy. I sense an increasing awareness of the practicality of these disciplines among those within my sphere, whether the recovery is from substance abuse or from some of many other spiritual illnesses we acknowledge and work to overcome.
I'm not sure why Barna separated points 2 and 4. They seem related to me.
I think that tolerance is increasing. I don't see this as a negative development – rather, I view it as a natural result of growing beyond our parochial boundaries. I have subscribed to the Stone-Campbell Journal for several years now. That heritage is much broader than I realized when I was younger. I believe that Campbell himself would not be accepted in some of our less tolerant areas due to doctrinal differences. He wasn't perfect…The trend as I perceive it is toward those broader horizons. A realization that being 100 percent doctrinally correct is an impossibility seems to be driving a more tolerant attitude in our studies and our viewpoints. I disagree that this is resulting in a "no moral absolutes worth fighting for" mentality. I do think that many of us are choosing our battles more wisely…
I agree with a previous comment that our culture would be much, much worse in the absence of Christian influence. I also wonder where we were during the past 50 years or so. How did Roe v. Wade happen? Etc. Interestingly, that pendulum seems to be swinging the other way now. It makes me wonder whether the trends Barna has identified here are not much older, and perhaps on the wane.
We live in a picture vs. word culture. What we call "functional analphabetism" (in Austria about 12% of the adults) creeps into the church as well.
To this you may add the "race for relevance" which is tied to Nr 3: pragmatism. Sermons shall provide anectoted and halpful advice for outr daily life, but shall not bother us with too much scripture.
Further we live in a "here and now"-culture with little to zero interest in history.
And last but not least, our post modern coluture has abandoned the "concept of truth" so they don't dig for truth anymore. Thus facts and details don't matter.
This stands is quite a contrast to Nrs 4 and 6. If we are less outreach oriented, why is the interest in participating in community action escalating? And if our interest is escalating, why is that largely invisibly?
And we all know where this comes from, don't we? It has a lot to do with Christian bestseller authors and seeker-friendly (marketing oriented) church planting methods that focus on numbers.
As I said, this sounds very strange in the light of Nr 2 and Nr 4.
This is actually a consequence of Nrs 1 and 3! If we are theological analphabets that just believe what works, then the results are what counts. And since the results can be achieved by many different means, we become more tolerant.
If the end is speaking in tongues (e.g.) and this can be achieveved i pentecostal, evangelical-charismatic and Roman-Catholic-charismatic circles, then – Hooray! We have the same Spirit, we are one! If Jesus is all that matters, then we can ignore all other differences. If Faith is what saves, we can embrace unbaptized, fauthful (or wellmeaning) Christians from all denominations.
So this is all a result of our post modern indifference to the quest for truth.
I believe this is also a consequence of a lukewarm lifestyle. As long as we don't differ from the world by doing ALL of Christ's will, we are unnecessary. Salt without taste.
I am not really shocked by this. All I can say is: There you have it.
Alexander
Barna is attempting to explain this phenomena in point 3 the growing number of Christians no longer believe the church has the solution for life. Can a “surviving” Christian have any power in there massage of hope of salvation? The world looks to the church as something that is not just truth but a reward of good deeds. What good is faith if it is not translated into a success lifestyle? Failure to thrive and to be blessed by God in the church looks very hypocritical to outsiders. We can't blame our children for what they see is an oxymoron. “Worldly Christianity” is much more prosperous than tradition Christianity.
You may call it an oxymoron – it's about the "upside-down-values" of the Kingdom: Who loves his life will lose it; who dies to self will live. The first shall be last and vice versa.
It may be harder to communicate than, let's say: "Trust God and become rich and beautiful!" – maybe we need to recover a sense of the unrighteousness of mammon, and the judgment that awaits a worldy Christianity.
Alexander
"The influence of Christianity on culture and individual lives is largely invisible." This may not be bad. We are to be salt and light, but we should not be trying to draw attention to ourselves. It's okay if we are "invisible", as long as we are making Christ visible to those around us.
I converted from an intellectually astute agnostic and atheistic group of friends. I love my Christian family, but I also have the pleasure of dealing with a large number of unbelievers during my daily routine. Given my history of encounters with Christians before and after my conversion, I would fully agree with Barna. — Sadly
Before my conversion, the majority of the Christians that I encountered, regardless of age, knew little theology or basic verses, had no basis for their faith, lived hypocritically, and were inconsistent within 5min of conversation. I eventually encountered a very humble, patient, and knowledgeable man – hence my conversion (ha ha).
Denominational feuding seems to be in style, but the reality is that few know how to talk to unbelievers and adherents to other religions who reject the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Sadly, they also fail to live the Christian life, which possibly could have won non-Christians without a word.
Laymond,
whatchu talkin' 'bout willis?
ABasnar said
"And last but not least, our post modern culture has abandoned the "concept of truth" so they don't dig for truth anymore. Thus facts and details don't matter."
I think part of the problem is that there are too many facts and details and because of that we partisans can craft and twist them into any narrative to prove what we already know.
H. Guy, maybe I was wrong but I took this to be talking about the "indwelled holy ghost" . The younger gen. ask questions and expect answers, one question they asked, on new wineskins, was "if christians are indwelled by this same spirit, how come they don't see things the same" how come they are not all in agreement, I can't answer that, can you?
yep, what you believe is the truth, whether you can prove it or not.
This would not match with Observation Nr 1.
The problem is maybe close to what you mean: Halftruths prevail, superficial knowledge of complex matters. And that's how we can create our own narratives – such as in the IM-AC-debates, where people admit to not have read the ECF, but still dismiss them, as odd and irrelevant, since they already know what they want to be true. Or: they don't want there to be a true or false, but just freedom. (Not to warm up the debate here, but just to give an illustration).
Pragmatism plays also a major role in this.
In the same IM/AC debates there are many who don't (want to) undetrstand the OT/NT shift and it's consequences for reading the scriptures: Typologically. Many argue instead that IM is necessary for better Evangelism or for keeping the youth.
You can see the same patterns in almost all areas of disagreement in our churches. This is a real dilemma …
Alexander
Mr. Laymond, I come from the younger generation, and I have asked myself the same question: ""if christians are indwelled by this same spirit, how come they don't see things the same" how come they are not all in agreement, I can't answer that, can you?" Through my own study I have found that we are all different and unique members that have different gifts and roles in the body of Christ. When all the members understand their role, and strive to keep unity and peace in that role for the edification and the building up of their brothers and sisters, esteeming their brothers and sisters higher than themselves and what edifies them, encourages them and builds them up rather than ourselves, we see the Spirit's work in action in "keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." I believe Paul understood that no two persons are going to agree on everything, because if two people agree on everything, then only one person is doing the thinking. The Spirit obviously understood there would be disagreements among Christians because, Paul, who was filled with the Holy Spirit, just like we are as Christians today, understood that disagreements are going to arise among brethren some times, but it is the Spirit's power in each individual Christian that helps us overcome esteeming our opinion too high and getting our way and instead of looking out for the best interest of our brother and sister. I've noticed that too many Christians, including myself in a lot of instances, argue and are contentious with their Christian brother and sister, because they want to prove how right they are instead of edifing, encouraging or building the other person up. If we all did a better job of praying that the Spirit would produce His fruit in us, I believe we would see the same indwelling Spirit in every Christian through the disagreements, because there would be love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control exemplified in our disagreements which would help keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Sorry this was so long. I hope this helps Mr. Laymond in answering that question, but I would love feedback too, so I can continue to learn. May the Lord bless you in your walk with him!
It seems the question being discussed now assumes a certain connection between (1) The HS indwelling and (2) the truth/unity/accuracy of beliefs of those with HS indwelling.
But if it is the case that HS indwelling means we should have the same beliefs, wouldn't that be the case in the first century? Romans 14, 1Cor 8, etc. suggest that indwelt people did not all possess identical beliefs.
i'm not sure where that leaves us though. It seems just as puzzling to me in that case as in the present case.
–guy
A steady diet of devotionals with catchy titles and cool Power Point presentations is not as likely to help people know God as preaching the Bible.