Religion Survey, Part 1

Before I get to the post let me start by squelching any rumors as it pertains to me. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a genius. Nor am I an English major, great orator, world renowned theologian, etc. I am by all accounts a simpleton. So please bear with me and please be patient. This will be my first blog post...ever. Now, without any further ado, on the post!

The subject matter of this post is a recent AP article I read on cnn.com. The link is as follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html

While the content does not surprise me, it most definitely saddens and enrages me all at once. As I type, I sit back and wonder how I should approach this article. What angle should I take? Basically, how should I tackle this article and its content? For this first post I decided to break down my response by paragraph.

Paragraph 1 (emphasis added):

(AP) -- The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds.

From the opening line we already see the first real problem concerning this article. The AP is treating religion as a marketplace (which is volatile no less). The very foundation of the article is erroneous by the sheer fact that the AP is treating religion as a business. Religion (more specifically Christianity) is not a business. The catholic Church on earth is not a business! Unfortunately, there are church denominations that make church a business, and in the end any church that does so is entirely incorrect in its actions. The catholic Church is not some Fortune 500 company with Jesus (or the pope for that matter) as the CEO. It just doesn't work that way, in fact, if any CEO was to run their business with Jesus as the exact model, they would shut there doors soon after opening. Jesus is not a businessman. Jesus is not a door to door salesman either. He is the Second Person of the Trinity. He is my Savior and yours. He is the "...Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Praise Be to God! So from the get go, we can see the erroneous stance the AP is taking by turning religion (more specifically Christianity) into a business. Not to mention the way in which the AP talks of adults leaving the faith as a "switch (in) allegiances." What is this Survivor? Has Christianity been whittled down to where it is nothing more than a reality television show? If that is the case then God help our country.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 (emphasis added):

The study released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is unusual for its sheer scope, relying on interviews with more than 35,000 adults to document a diverse and dynamic U.S. religious population.

While much of the study confirms earlier findings -- mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing -- it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.

I must confess, I have no clue what the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is (probably a non-prof.) and what they do, although I will venture to guess that they do studies on religion (and maybe public life as well) but there are two words that jump out at me in the second paragraph. Any guess on what those might be? The two words are "diverse" and "dynamic." While the words themselves are of no particular interest to me, when they are used to describe anything possibly involving Christianity my ears naturally perk. In what way the article sees the "U.S. religious population" as "diverse" and "dynamic," I'm not quite sure but I do know this: all too often the words "diverse" and "dynamic" are used to further a false perception of Christianity by American Evangelicalism.

Is the makeup of any Christian congregation “diverse”? Most definitely. You have some who are tall while others are short. You have some who are male while others are female. You have some who are old while others are young. You have a varying number of ethnic backgrounds as well. While the makeup of the congregation can be “diverse,” what happens when they step foot inside the church door? What happens? We don’t lose the genetic makeup that makes us who we are nor do we all magically become bodily twins but we absolutely become one. We become one body of sinners in need of God’s grace poured out for us in Word and Sacrament. As Romans 3 says so directly,

“For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

In faith, we are one in God’s eyes. As Galatians 3 states,

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

In our baptism, we are made one with Christ. Through the holy gifts received by faith in baptism we are received as children of God and are made one in Christ Jesus. So, while the church body may be “diverse” in their genetic, social and cultural makeup, in Christ Jesus we are one. We are identical as baptized children of God, having put on Christ so that when God looks upon us on the last day, He will not see our rotting, sinful flesh. He will only see His Son, our Savior and in that there can be no greater hope and comfort. Praise Be to God!

How is the word “dynamic” used in Christianity today? I am certain there are ways in which the word “dynamic” is used in a good, right and salutary way in describing an aspect of Christianity (which I hope to show an example of later). Personally, all too often I have seen the use of the word “dynamic” completely juxtaposed as it pertains to God and man. In my experience, the word “dynamic” has been used to describe some attribute inside of man. One must not travel far to find any number of local or national “pastors” or “preachers” who are described as “dynamic.” Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, and most famously Billy Graham have more than likely been described as “dynamic” at some point in their life. But what is most important when describing a pastor? Is it more important for the pastor to be a dynamic public speaker with a wonderful charisma or is it more important for the pastor to be faithful to the sound teachings of God’s Word? In the following example, which is the more “successful” pastor?

Pastor A: Pastor A is a truly charismatic presence. He is a top notch orator with unrivaled skills in speech and language. He is described by his congregation as “dynamic.” He is the pastor to a huge congregation where on any given Sunday he could preach to 30,000 people. He has a message of hope and love of how God wants to give you all the earthly blessings you could stand right here, right now. He purposely and deliberately preaches around such subjects as Sin, the distinction between Law & Gospel, Justification, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity and Christ and Him crucified (and the like) but in the end he makes his congregation feel so uplifted and good about themselves (and isn’t that what truly matters).

Pastor B: Pastor B is your average confessional pastor. The day charisma was taught in school, he missed. He isn’t the most eloquent of speakers. At times a slight stammer is evident. When he first accepted his call to become the under shepherd of his current church, the church rolls showed 200 members. After 3 years, the church rolls show a total of 125 members. He teaches that “no one is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10) but “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:2-5). He purposely and deliberately preaches on such subjects as Sin, the distinction between Law & Gospel, Justification, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity and Christ and Him crucified while always maintaining the scriptural and doctrinal teachings of his church’s confessions. He simply preaches the Word in its truth and purity and he faithfully administers the Sacraments.

The million dollar question: Which pastor is more successful? Pastor A or Pastor B? Getting to the bottom of this question requires us to break the question down into two questions. Which pastor is more successful in the eyes of the world? Which pastor is more successful in the eyes of God? In our sin, we look at the two pastors and say Pastor A is more successful. In our sin, we define success by how dynamic a pastor’s sermons are or how charismatic a pastor may be. In our sin, we look to the man for “dynamics” and not to God. Lutheran Theologian, Rev. Klemet I. Preus in his book “The Fire and the Staff” writes:

"Think back to the sixth grade when you were learning about adjectives, words that modify nouns. Take the sentence 'The Word is in the hands of the people.' Now add the adjective 'dynamic' to the sentence. The difference between Evangelical American Protestantism and the Church Growth Movement, on the one hand, and the teaching of Scripture and the Lutheran church, on the other, is this: Which noun does the adjective modify? Do we say that the church thrives because dynamic people speak the Word? Or do we say that the church thrives because people speak the dynamic Word? Evangelicalism and the Church Growth Movement say the former. The Scriptures and the Lutheran church say the latter." (282)

God’s Word is “dynamic.” We needn’t find a “dynamic” person to be a pastor. We needn’t look any further than God’s Word to find all the dynamism we need. If the “dynamics” of the pastor is on the list of God’s priorities then He must have slipped up with Moses. Moses was not a great speaker. In fact, he had a speech impediment yet God used Moses for the feeding of His flock (much like but not the same as how Christ feeds us). (Exodus 4:9-12) If somehow the “dynamics” of the pastor leads to an increased number of followers and is how God desires that increase, then His own Son cannot be deemed anything less than a failure. Look no further than John 6 for an example. According to American Evangelicalism, Jesus had his mass of disciples’ right where he wanted them. He had performed miracles in front of them; in fact he performed one sometime earlier with the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1:15). It cannot be more dynamic than that. As American Evangelicalism defines it, Jesus’ act of feeding the 5,000 was the perfect example of dynamic. He had them and they were right where they wanted to be when a dreadful thing happened. Wouldn’t you know it; Jesus let the truth get in the way of “success.” Jesus spoke the truth and in their sin many of his disciples left him that day (John 6:60). They literally couldn’t “handle the truth.” How dare He! How dare anyone (let alone the Son of God) get in the way of numerical success! Inconceivable!

Now, do not get me wrong, that’s not to say that all churches that grow are evil and incorrect. If they are growing due to a watered down Gospel or some other false teaching, then yes they are evil and incorrect but do not think I am blanketing all growing churches into one category. I am simply stating in Scripture you see a remnant theme as it pertains to the Church, and God never promises tremendous growth when the Gospel is preached (as John 6 exemplifies) nor is growth the goal...speaking the truth is the goal. We do not need "dynamic" pastors to speak the Word. We need faithful pastors to speak the dynamic Word. Who would think the placement of one word could create such vastly different avenues of thinking as it pertains to the dynamics of the Church, but it has. It has today and it will tomorrow.

To be continued till Religion Survey, Part 2...

fjohan