The Barna Group has come out with another provocative statistical study on the American church (you can see it here HT Ed Stetzer). Ed Stetzer refers to it in his blog post here. The implication of the study is that the larger the church is – the more conservative its theology. One might be led to think that this means the larger churches – bigger than 1000 – are doing a better job of discipling people into orthodox believers than smaller churches.
Now I know most people, including Ed, are not going to jump to such an overly simplistic conclusion. A perusal of the comments from Ed’s post already gives one an immediate glimpse of the cynical cloud that hovers over these statistics. So no need to try to undermine the validity of this study and the way it has gone about gathering these statistics. Instead I’d like to ask the question: is it possible these statistics tell us more about what it means “to be born again” than the conservative/orthodox quality of the mega-churches’ theology? I suggest that far from revealing that the mega church somehow nurtures/disciples orthodoxy better than small churches, we see that “born again” (along with the other terms Barna uses to locate evangelical orthodoxy) hardly means what it used mean, that indeed the born again revivalist and activist Christianity of my parents and grand parents generation is on a stark decline. What we really have here is the morphing of what it means to believe in an inerrant Bible, a divine Christ and a conversionist theology into a very vapid form of Christianity best thought of in terms of Christendom (as opposed to a vibrant revivalist evangelical activist Christianity we most often associate with these words).
I am in the middle of a writing project that describes how the main markers of traditional evangelicalism – high view of Scripture, conversionist soteriology (you must be born again) and an evangelistic activism – do not mean what they used to mean in their evangelical origins say prior to WW2. They have become belief structures, ideological objects, identifiers which in effect mean less and less in our real lives yet somehow enable us to go on claiming a very secure identity as Christians – the identity of an evangelical Bible believing Christian who knows where he/she is going when she dies! The actual practice of a high view of Scripture – i.e that this is God’s history of Mission in the world continuing on to this day, the actual practice of born again conversion – a visceral repentance and turning towards a Christian life of repentance, reconciliation, and service to God’s Mission in the world, has become an ideology where these dramatic ways of life are lost, and instead organized into corporate forms of behavior that have little impact in people’s concrete living and the Christian engagement of society. This is of course a description of what happens when Christianity becomes accommodated to an existing culture. The point then is: far from telling us that it is the true believers, orthodox Christians, the “born again, Bible believing, evangelistically oriented, vibrant Christians” that go to mega churches, this survey of Barna might actually tell us something quite different: that the remainders of what’s left of Christianity have been herded into the large mega churches to live out their days in a much more comfortable socially accommodative form of Christianity. OK, this might be harsh – but I’m just asking!!
From all indications, Barna didn’t survey the growing band of missional communities I am in communication with. I don’t blame Barna: for one – these communities are hard to find – they don’t advertise a lot!! But here, these small communities (under 200, many under 50) live Scripture in ways rarely visible in corporate Christianity. In the way they submit their lives to Scripture, its call on their lives daily, they show their assent to a high view of its authority in their lives. Here in these missional communities they believe in the divine Jesus and seek to follow him. They believe in conversion, but that conversion is more than a momentary decision, it is the turning into/the baptizing into an entire new life under His Lordship. I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS NOT VISIBLE TO SOME EXTENT IN THE MEGA CHURCHES. But I am suggesting that the high view of Scripture, the assent to Christ divinity, the believe in a “born again” life is not simply assented to but is forced to be a form of living for the smaller missional communities. Their form of organization allows for nothing else. After all, who would want to go to such a small organic community unless they were intentional in these ways? This is something completely missed by Barna’s survey.
To be sure, mega-church Christianity is organized to be accessible to individuals. We should not be surprised then when individualist aspects of Christianity (the personal born again experience, the inerrant Bible perspicuously available to each individual) find their largest prevalence in large churches. Likewise, the protestant mainline churches which have long been in decline, aren’t as attached to individualist Christianity. We should then not be surprised that their churches will be smaller more communal. The real lessons from these Barna numbers however, may be that a.) It is the smaller missionally- minded communities of younger evangelicalism that might be the ones truly living out these beliefs, and, while this is happening b.) Christendom (what’s left of it) continues to consolidate into the mega church.
I’m open for comments and push back on this interpretation of Barna.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
David – I think you’re probably right. Incidentally, I just talked about this this past weekend at our church in a message about recapturing “witness” in a post-Christendom culture, and drew attention to a couple fascinating studies (which I’m sure you’re aware of) that tell similar tales: Duke’s NCSII study found that while most congregations were small, most Christians were in larger congregations. Play that note off of the Harvard Institute for Religion’s National Survey of Megachurches which found that only 6% of those that attended these churches said that they were converted in the megachurch, and I think the picture you see emerging is exactly what you’ve pointed out – the consolidation of Christendom. Statistically, Christendom (and evangelical Protestantism with it) is in a statistical retreat.
Just a quick comment: it’s ironic that the problem with conservative evangelicalism might be that it is not TOO biblical, but not biblical enough. Likewise, neo-liberalism is not TOO critical, but not critical enough. (I found the phrase on this blog post, which complements many of the things you said in your post, David).
Some other fun comments from the afore-mentioned blog post (by Kim Fabricius):
Conservative evangelicals “hold tenaciously to the quite unbiblical, relatively newfangled, and deeply problematical doctrine of biblical inerrancy.” (thought you’d appreciate that one, Fitch).
They also, “act like the doctrine of penal substitution is in the Creeds.”
I wonder if mega congregations tend to be “conservative” because it brings a sense of familiarity and security. The call to discipleship, however, is anything but familiar and secure. In that case, it’s not an orthodox orientation but a culturally comfortable orientation we’re seeing in these churches. Christianity really isn’t that tidy.
Sternke … you heretic
I have to say that this post was deeply encouraging to me today. As a pastor of an under-50 church trying to do what you describe, it really gave me a sense of hope and rekindled the fire. Thanks!
Peace,
Jamie
A few responses to your conclusions…
“Barna numbers however, may be that a.) It is the smaller missionally- minded communities of younger evangelicalism that might be the ones truly living out these beliefs, and, while this is happening b.) Christendom (what’s left of it) continues to consolidate into the mega church.” …
In regard to conclusion “a.)” Is this also true for the church globally? Also, if “a).” is true for all (or most) of the smaller missionally-minded communities of younger evangelicalism, is there any delineation to your conclusions between those communities that exist in suburban as opposed to urban areas? More pointedly, do you see a trend that missional churches in suburban areas (say, NW Chicago) are any less “forced” into the type of missional obedience, which you describe, than urban ones? Finally, “who would want to go to such a small organic community unless they were intentional in these ways?”…well, young adults (namely 20ish to 30ish singles) who are inclined to think that such “organic communities” are trendier than the churches in which they were raised.
In regard to “b.)” I have generally been hesitant to completely buy-in to the breadth of your theory of the death of Christendom mainly because I think the south (US) is still, for the most part, dealing with it. However, I do find conclusion “b” generally to be true of the south as well, especially in more urban areas (take DFW,TX for example).
Thanks Dave,
Seth
Seth,
in regard to a.) OUCH! I think you might be alluding to us at LOV being trendy (hipster … ugh). If you’re not, I breathe a sigh of relief. Having said that, we certainly have talked about this danger at the Vine, and to ward it off, I think we have consciously made some decisions i.e.1.) not to get bigger, not build, but send out large teams of people to mid-lower income areas where there is a void of church communties to start missional inhabitation/communities, 2.) do some things to promote intentional communal discipleship – like the non-Checklist idea … which I’ll explain for people not at the Vine in a post upcoming.
And in regard to b.) I have never denied Christendom is alive and well in the south, even parts of Chicagoland. The first piece of evidence to me would be the vast proliferation of mega churches in the south. In the NE, and in Canada (excepting Alberta), and in NW … the less mega churches per capita reveals the advance of post Christendom. Having said all that there are still mega churches in all those regions, and I would say, based on arguments I’ve made elsewhere, they too are playing off the dying vestiges of Christendom – and AGAIN- FOR SOME OF THESE CHURCHES THEY DO IT IN A FAITHFUL MANNER – I just fear those who seek to emulate them are doomed to failure … because there is less and less Christendom to be harvested for “a church.”
two thoughts:
1. how homogeneous are these mega-churches? how easily do members flow from congregation to congregation with differing beliefs and practices?
2. if these churches are are homogeneous as i suspect, then dont churches become an echoing chamber? people’s ideas and behaviors are validated from one church to the next, so is that how they get to be more conservative?
Dave,
1. No worries, I was not accusing LOV of Christian-hipster-ness. I was just pointing out that it does not follow that ONLY “intentional people” are attracted to “small organic community”, and because it does not follow, such small organic communities need to be actively avoiding that danger, much like LOV has done and continues to do.
2. Fair enough that you haven’t denied that Christendom is alive and well in parts of the country. But my impression (which is misinformed, I’m sure) is that your vision/strategy for doing church missionally assumes the deadness of Christendom. I’m not lobbying for the usefulness of mega churches in the presence, or even the vestiges, of Christendom. I’m asking how do you think a small, organic community would fare in Christendom…in a place like Dallas? Does the vision/strategy change?
Thanks again,
Seth
[...] David Fitch argues that Christendom is consolidating into a megachurch. [...]
Sounds like a fascinating writing project. What you said there really rings true to me. Looking forward to reading it!
“A church that can’t worship must be entertained & men who can’t lead a church to worship must provide entertainment.” AW Tozer
Dave,
Thanks for the insights. I am not a huge fan of using statistical studies to arrive at judgment calls. Surveys can provide interesting information, but too often they don’t show the whole picture. In this instance, your interpretation would be very poignant and powerful IF you had extensive experience with mega-churches that backed up the statistical information. The problem is, practically no one can have extensive experience in many domains of life to corroborate with statistics that are published.
My prior “home church” would be defined as a “mega” church. There, you could find all walks of life, although the majority were real, born again, living-the-changed-life, Christians. At this particular church, your interpretation wouldn’t hold true. But like I mentioned earlier, since I don’t have extensive experience with mega churches, it’s impossible for me to say whether my experience contradicts your interpretation or not. It just happens to be one mega church that I was a part of that may or may not represent the practical reality of the majority.
Without experience to support or contradict your interpretation of the Barna study, I am not saying you are wrong in your interpretation, I’m just saying that one can’t know whether or not your thoughts are accurate or not.
That’s my take on it, and I may be off on my thoughts, but I do appreciate your pondering on the subject.
Your brother,
Ben
Unfortunately, as with many of Barna’s surveys, this survey is one that raises more questions than it answers.
First about 45% of the people in the survey are Protestants – no indication what percentage of the remaining people who also went to church and who were RC or EO. They certainly don’t all attend church every week (because total weekly church attendance including RC and EO is only about 45%).
Second there is no breakdown of the type of church people went to (denominational or theological spectrum – liberal or conservative). The 2005 Hartford Seminary survey (check it out here http://hirr.hartsem.edu/megachurch/megastoday2005summaryreport.pdf) revealed that more than 90% of 1210 megachurches in the USA are evangelical (Pentecostal/Charismatic, non-denomination, baptistic). That would lead one to assume that most people who attend megachurches will likely have more evangelical beliefs. Whereas the percentage of smaller churches that are more liberal in outlook and practice would be much higher (more than 50%?).
Third, Stetzer highlights the difference among house church attendees.
“The religious beliefs and behaviors of people who attend house churches, which average about 20 adults in attendance, are more similar to the results for large conventional churches (i.e., more than 500 adults) than they are to the outcomes among those who attend small conventional churches (i.e., less than 50 adults).”
Without adding more information like religious tradition, level of church participation, etc., the results are merely interesting, but not particularly helpful.
Michael
I agree with you, your observations are helpful. Which suggests that it might be better if people like me (or Ed) just ignore these kind of stats …
DF
It had consolidated previously – see the Catholic Church – the largest mega church in the world.
[...] David Fitch argues that Christendom is consolidating into a megachurch. [...]
[...] David Fitch argues that Christendom is consolidating into a megachurch. [...]