Recently, I’ve been making my way through Alistair McGrath’s book, Christianity’s Dangerous Idea. The book is an account of Protestantism starting off from the Reformation. The main premise of the book is that the radical idea proposed by the Reformers, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was that individuals could interpret the Bible for themselves. McGrath explores how this idea has played historically and through different regions of the world. I’m not done with the book yet, but so far, there have been several fascinating insights.
This morning while I was reading, I came across the following paragraphs regarding the vast variety of Protestant churches.
It is not unfair to suggest that the Protestant vision of the church unleashes a Darwinian process of competition and survival in which maladapted churches are gradually eliminated and what survives is better suited to the needs and opportunities of the day. Using an essentially economic model, Laurence Iannaccone and Rodney Stark argue that the European state churches have created a religious monopoly, leading to a radical restriction of religious options for its people. In marked contrast, the United States offers an open market of religious options, with none either sanctioned or restricted by the state. Commitment to organized religion is higher in countries such as the United States because religious pluralism encourages market responsiveness to the religious consumer. In Europe, they argue, the institutional churches have seen little purpose in identifying and meeting the needs of their parishioners.
If Iannaccone and Stark are right, Protestantism flourishes in the United States on account of open competition, which forces churches to take the needs and aspirations of their members seriously. In contrast, the privileged position of state churches in Europe has often led to the entrenchment of outdated approaches and attitudes, and above all a neglect of the religious consumer by leaders who are often wedded to the convenient certainties of the past. In America, competition encourages religious entrepreneurship and vitality. As Steve Bruce, professor of sociology at the University of Aberdeen, points out: “Free-market capitalism explains why Americans are rich; free-market religion explains why Americans are church-going”.
I find McGrath’s explanation of the “free market” nature of Protestantism to be sort of fascinating. Perhaps it’s because I have heard so many writers and speakers use this type of explanation in a derogatory way. In fact, I’ve probably done it myself a few times. So what’s your take? Is some amount of “natural selection” healthy in the landscapes of American Protestantism? Or is this simply McGrath putting a positive spin on a bad situation?
20 Comments(+Add)
I’m not sure. They are probably right, but I’m not sure it is a good thing. Stark’s book “The Rise of Christianity” is really great and he is a terrific sociologist with keen insights on the process of conversion.
As to free market churches I can’t see how that is a great thing for forming disciples. Churches become country clubs and Americans, as is their nature, simply “shop” for what meets their needs.
Erwin McManus hates that sort of stuff (see his book, “The Unstoppable Force”) and so do I. Americans hate conflict. And yet, it is conflict that helps us grow more than comfortability.
well, just think, Chad…
your constant conflict with Chris L has been some force for growth for both of you…
Very true, Nathan. Such growth I think I need some Prep H.
i think i agree with both alistair and chad.
alistair is right that the lack of an official state church, one supported by the state has forced american churches to compete – and this has good consequences.
on the other hand, as chad rightly points out, the downside to this has been some churches compromising.
There should never be any “competition” when all true churches are supposed to have one Lord.
It’s hardly a new concept– De Creveceour hit on it (as did many American writers) his in his 1782 “Letters From an American Farmer”–the idea that Americans are religious because they have the freedom to be, as opposed to the “strict modes of Christianity practised in Europe.” He predicts a meshing together of denominational differences, and talks about a “religious indifference” (within Christianity) developing among Americans. He then defines what he means by religion–”Persecution, religious pride, the love of contradiction, are the food of what the world commonly calls religion. These motives have ceased here…”
It seems that the main religious practice in Europe today is materalism…
I agree with this sentiment, but I think the point the McGrath is making here, and elsewhere in the book is that because much of Protestantism is based on a democratization of church leadership, it has introduced a level of accountability of the leadership to the congregation that didn’t exist previously. Where this accountability doesn’t exist, the authority structures seem to become corrupt and forget their purposes for being there.
Of course, there can be a problem if people in churches really start thinking of themselves as “consumers”, and I think that’s probably not the best choice of words. I do think, though, given the number of times I have seen pastors who start becoming dictatorial and abusing their authority, that I am thankful that it doesn’t come down to “my way or the highway” and that there exists outlets for people hurt by the church.
This is interesting, Phil. I may pick that up and give it a read.
A friend of mine who teaches church history, both in the US and at a number of third-world schools of evangelism, highlights Constantine as both a “high point” and a “low point” in the history of the Church. The ‘high point’ was his edict in 313 that officially recognized tolerance of Christianity as a religion and returned the confiscated property of the church. The ‘low point’ was his treatment of Christianity as the state religion and the complete mixing of church/state for centuries thereafter.
To Chad’s point, some conflict is good, and one of the problems with the American church is that it is far too easy to “church shop”. I don’t know, though, that the “official state church” model improves discipleship over the “free market”model.
Considering the economies of scale, particularly with modernized communications and commerce, I would agree with the authors, though, that corruption is much more difficult to root out and much more destructive when found (see the pedophilia scandals in the Catholic church and the child abuse scandals in the Irish Catholic schools for example) in a monolithic/state-monopolized institution.
“The ‘high point’ was his edict in 313 that officially recognized tolerance of Christianity as a religion and returned the confiscated property of the church. The ‘low point’ was his treatment of Christianity as the state religion and the complete mixing of church/state for centuries thereafter.”
Both of those were low points that reduced persecution and began the compromise of the church. There was nothing about Constantine that aided the church to seek Christ.
I believe that the main purpose of the church is bring glory to God and to spread the gospel of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. If this “competition” leads to the fulfillment of these goals, then I would consider it a good thing. Perhaps the idea of various churches spurring each other on to a higher standard is better than the idea of competition, especially if by competition we mean competing for numbers.
I would concur with previous commenters that the consumerist attitude can be problematic in that it can lead to a church that is man-centered rather than God-centered. If our motivation is to seek God’s glory out of love for him and to seek the salvation of others out of love for them, we must put our own desires by the wayside, at least to the extent that we do not fashion churches simply or mainly around what makes us comfortable of titillates our senses.
The last sentence of the quotation strikes me, in that it specifies “church-going”. While church attendance in and of itself may be a barometer of spiritual vitality, it certainly does not equate to “saved”, which of course is our goal.
Of course the low hanging fruit to point to that combines the idea that consumerism is dangerous and church-going can be deceiving is Joel Osteen’s Lakewood Church. Heavy on hearing what I want to hear, light on proclamation of the true good news. Disclaimer: I make no judgment as to the hearts of the Lakewood attendees or their salvific status.
“competition” is probably a bad word. too many churches already compete with other churches for the feet (and dollars) of the believers.
that said, accountability, creativity, etc… are a good by-product of the “free-market’ system as it were.
CompetitionCooperation
You’re right, because what we really need is the world killing off more Christians… If we’re going to up the quality, we need to jettison the nominal quantity.
[unsurprisingly] I would suggest that the edict in 313 was about as optimal a balance the church should hope for: 1) An absence of active persecution by the government (which results in a lot of killing (so much for your pacifist claims), drives away weaker Christians, and hinders the free spreading of the Gospel); and 2) An absence of active proselytization by the government (which results in a large number of “believers” who have no motivation outside of the advantages of being seen as in compliance).
We should expect our government to provide justice – its God-given role – and to stick to its limited role. Active persecution is not justice, and active proselytization is not the role of government.
When the church lives in cultural darkness without any noticable effect, and when there is no real persecution, there is only one conclusion to be reached.
We would welcome the “toleration” of Christianity as a religion, however it came at a great price. We must always look suspiciously at government good will since there are many pitfalls when we let down our distinctive guard and when we assume that any governmnet actually understands our mission and is action void of their own interests.
Actually, though, apart from the occasional skirmishes with Jews recorded in Acts, it doesn’t appear that the early church faced major persecution until later, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Paul himself underwent a lot of suffering while spreading the Gospel, and it seems he did expect some of the congregations he was writing to as well, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that persecution is always the mark of the “pure” church.
Persecution has waxed and waned throughout history. In the West, the greatest source of persecution since the Reformation has generally been Christians killing other Christians.
I also don’t know that I’d say that the church at large has “no effect” on culture. Popular culture comes and goes, and things have seemed to become more vulgar and crass (something that people in every generation seem to think of the next), but I don’t know if we can actually see all the effects Christians have in society easily.
I see no where in Scripture that we are to invite persecution although we can expect it. I think we need to perfrom our commission without fear and endurance and let Providence handle the persecution part. I do, however, see instruction to flee from city to city when persecuted (Matt 10:23) so evidently we are to escape with our lives if we are able and not necessarily jump on the sword when we do have a way of escape.
In a strange irony, most persecution of the church actually is at the hands of the church. But that is beside the point. I’m only responding to a couple of words in #18 and readily concede that my comment has nothing to do with the OP and, thus, I apologize.
thinking of a cultural continuum i like where the u.s. is ans is headed… christianity is still protected along with other religions, and i have no reson to suspect that will change, but it is no longer propped up or assumed.
in other words; post-christendom.