Today a friend of mine on Facebook (not just a Facebook contact, an actual friend) posted a link to a survey by White Horse Inn distributed at a Franklin Graham evangelism and Christian music event in August. According to the survey, a total of 92 people participated (45% male, 55% female). 57% were teens between 13 and 19, 29% were adults between 20 and 40, and 14% were adults over 40. I wish more people had participated in the survey, but given the nature of the event where it was distributed, these results are quite interesting in and of themselves.
Asked whether God is like a helpful coach who is there to help us when we need him; he wants us to be happy, 96% responded in the affirmative. I’m a bit mystified by this “coaching” language that has permeated Christian circles. Is it mentoring and/or discipleship? I’d love to hear what you think about sr. pastors who use the title “Coach” instead of “Pastor.” Anyway, I digress.
Other questions in the survey included the obvious inquiries into the church’s relevance, whether it should be entertaining, enjoyable, and fun. 79% of the respondents believe that it is important to grasp difficult doctrines like the Trinity, the atonement, and propitiation. But 26% believe the doctrine of justification refers to our need to do good works to justify ourselves before God in order to go to heaven. Ok, so this doesn’t represent a majority of the respondents, but 26% is a significant portion, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the number were larger if the survey were taken by more people. Here is where it gets truly scary, as if all that wasn’t enough. When asked to agree or disagree with the statement, There is no one righteous, there is no one who does good, there is no one who seeks God, 67% choose to disagree with the Apostle Paul.
The results of this survey are not a tremendous surprise, but I think that’s the saddest part of all.
November 11th, 2009 | 9:18 am | #1
Sarah –
This is a great conversation-starter. This survey was the topic of discussion this week at WHI, and when I listened to it this week I was both saddened and infuriated. I was saddened by the results as they are frankly discouraging no matter how you slice it, but the way it was sliced between Horton & Co. left me somewhat agog and vexated.
There is no question that we’d love to see these questions answered better by people who are, all told, Christians.
The first thing this survey needs, however, is some context. My suspicion is that this was conducted at one of the sites from “Rock the River”, a tour of a handful of cities generally youth-oriented, and likely a mix of churched and unchurched (labels I’d use intentionally to avoid the question of whether they are “christian” or not) kids and adults.
The second thing I’d context here is the number of responders, which you list as 97, but Horton cited as 100 in the WHI episode. Not for nothin’, but a statistically-relevant sample of any group represents at least 10% of the population or 1000 subjects. While I’m not so sure the results would have been much better with a larger sample, this speaks to a larger point which we will get back to in a second.
Third, there is no control data for this survey. that is: how “churched” are these people? How many times in the last 4 weeks did they attend a worship service? How does the data spin against people who demonstrate commitment to church vs. the casual church-goer? We can’t tell.
So methodology is a key issue in this survey — and it’s a methodlogy which, I think, is driven by biases in the WHI perspective on the English-speaking church. I don’t think they have any nefarious intentions, but I do think they want to read the worst into the situation.
Here’s what I mean: one of the things I would take away from this survey is that the people surveyed have never encountered any kind of catechesis or systematic theological training. That’s not great, but it’s hardly the end of the world. Many people will do well before Christ in the final judgement who cannot answer the question, “What is the difference between exipation, propitiation, and justification?”
And in that, as I listened to the men on the White Horse talk about this survey — men whom I would call “theological friendlies” — I heard them expound to great lengths on the problem of making the “move to the subjective” in the minds of the people being questioned.
Now: as they were saying this, my mind wandered over to the Westminster Shorter Catechism, which has as its first question this:
What is the chief end of man?
Is this a move toward the “subjective” by the magisterial reformers? Or is this reflective of the fact that, all told, the Gospel is for us and to us and therefore we have to think about what it means from our station and position in this universe?
So the results of the survey are not very satisfying, but the perspective of our friends at WHI is, to say the least, not encouraging either. Maybe the root problem is that we want everyone to have the exact same systematic theology that we have, and we have forgotten that while there is only one Gospel, there is in fact many members to the body of Christ — and not everyone is a brain cell.
November 11th, 2009 | 9:37 am | #2
Last night I read this article, I had also listened to the WHI as Mr. Turk had. I actually decided to post something about the survey and the sample…then I just went to bed. It is very interesting that Mr. Turk’s remarks are about “exactly” what I wanted to say only he did it much better with kindness and charity that I always appreciate. I am in total agreement on every point that he made. He did by far a better job than I could have.
November 11th, 2009 | 9:42 am | #3
Frank,
Having a background in stats and research, I have similar concerns about drawing conclusions from this data.
The Franklin Graham Aug. 2 event in St. Louis was definitely Rock the River. And it was, as described, an evangelistic outreach event. I was there. You probably could have had 100 kids in the mosh pit down front tell you Jesus is a frisbee.
While there’s no shortage of reasons to worry about the shallowness of evangelicalism, all this shows us is what 100 random people in a crowd of 60,000 at an outdoor concert in St. Louis thought.
November 11th, 2009 | 10:03 am | #4
Yep, I don’t disagree with any of your sentiments…the survey would have far more credibility if it had been taken by 900 more people.
Would it have been more interesting if it had been given at a Willow Creek Leadership Conference or a Moody Pastor’s Conference? Absolutely. It may have even been a national news story. ;) But if there is ANYTHING we can take from this, I believe it just underscores the need to provide more theological education to evangelical youth….and the adults teaching them. :)
November 11th, 2009 | 11:24 am | #5
It would be interesting to see this survey administered to the average church (leaving this open for interpretation, though Christian at the core) and the ensuing results. The leader of the church definitely could gauge his effectiveness and anointing to the preaching of God’s word. In conclusion it is what the few that are called to do as it was in Paul’s day, preach Christ crucified, so it is today. Nothing changes but the culture. Perhaps the Barna group has a more consistent survey of sorts for greater perception of the questions asked.
November 11th, 2009 | 11:27 am | #6
This is where the discussion gets interesting, Karen, because I am known (whether this is true of false is irrelevant) as a “TR” in the blogosphere — one of the “truly reformed” who allegedly is seeking a purely-pure theological Gospel which will, undoubtedly, win the whole mind of whosoever wills. I’m lumped in trh crowd of people who are watchbloggers who take every opportunity to take a shot at the Joel Osteens and the Rick Warrens of the world.
What if theological education is not the problem we think it is? Here’s what I mean: what if the problem is that, while it would be nice (maybe even culture-changing)for people everywhere to have memorized the whole Westminster Smaller Catechism, the lack of this kind of didacticism is not the problem.
What if the problem is that we think that reformed systematic theology is necessary to be followers of Jesus?
I know that sounds crazy from a guy who says that Francis Beckwith made a hollow choice when he switched camps, but what if someone can believe Christ without having Malenchthon’s systematic detail? What if someone can be a legitimate and spiritually-profitable pastor without being John Owen? What if it really is true that, as Paul says to Timothy,
Seriously: The goal of Paul’s command is love with a good conscience and a sincere faith?
I’m all for good doctrine, but it seems to me that good doctrine sends people in this direction and not into a seminary or monastery or any other kind of bunker.
November 11th, 2009 | 11:30 am | #7
Bryant, so many tools are available to churches that evaluate the effectiveness of their leaders, ministries, worship teams, etc. Unfortunately I don’t think there is one that gauges what is being taught and whether or not it is sinking in. I would love to see a tool like that available to congregations.
November 11th, 2009 | 12:45 pm | #8
[...] Frank Turk just posted something this morning on a related subject (comment #6). He included a highly appropriate verse, so here it [...]
November 11th, 2009 | 1:07 pm | #9
Frank,
As a graduate of a reformed seminary and as a pastor with a sincere appreciation for reformed theology, I can’t tell you how much I love and applaud your comment above.
November 11th, 2009 | 1:18 pm | #10
I think good doctrine will also send people in the direction of John 17:20-23.
We pray a lot of things for ourselves and our churches. I wonder how often we pray what Jesus prayed for us, how our goals for our churches line up with that prayer, and how seriously we take the implication of our lack of unity?
November 11th, 2009 | 3:28 pm | #11
#6: I don’t know what you have done with Frank Turk but you better bring him back, now.
November 11th, 2009 | 3:40 pm | #12
Ken –
I think you will find, indubitably, that comment #6 is wholly and irrefutably a central cog of all my blogging since 01 Jan 2005. It has been the disingenuous ploy of those with whom I have contended to make the case otherwise, but they are simply wrong.
November 11th, 2009 | 3:43 pm | #13
I also wanted to say: I am not a number! I am a Free Man!
November 11th, 2009 | 4:16 pm | #14
Sarah. I realize there are several barometers to gauge the effectiveness/health of a local church. I believe the more important question to ask is, is the torch being passed down to the next generation or is it gently (the flame) and slowly dying off? In Theology the term standing on the shoulders of giants comes to mind. If in fact we do carry the traditions of the past before us, then it would seem this would be a litmus test to gauge the effectiveness or perhaps the retention of what the church is teaching. I believe the church is doggedly behind the culture by about two steps and until we come to the realization that nothing should have changed for almost 2 millennium, historically speaking, then we can throw out the baby with the bath water, the regula fidei rule of faith. Since most contemporary churches are just that, what does that tell us about the particulars of the teachings in the church environ?
November 11th, 2009 | 5:29 pm | #15
Bryant –
I find that criticism particularly interesting because in one sense, I agree with it. here’s what you said:
So here’s my clarifying question: are we more spiritually-informed than the Apostles?
It’s the most-important question we can ask ourselves regarding what it means to “pass the torch”.
November 11th, 2009 | 6:31 pm | #16
Of course we’re more spiritually-informed than the Apostles, Frank.
We have the Interweb, with all its watchblogging, theologizing wonders. The Aposles are up in Heaven just wishing they knew what we do today.
November 11th, 2009 | 8:41 pm | #17
But wait, the Mormons at the door told me that the apostles forgot to write a bunch of stuff down, and that things got watered down across the centuries.
Unless, somehow, what the apostles received, they passed on to us.
November 11th, 2009 | 9:38 pm | #18
So here’s my clarifying question: are we more spiritually-informed than the Apostles?
It’s the most-important question we can ask ourselves regarding what it means to “pass the torch”.
Such a response would take more space than I am allotted, and secondly the answer becomes the manifold for the timeless truth that it portrays in the Apostles repose to such a disciplined life style that few find and many wonder about.
Let me say that there is no right or wrong answer in being spiritually-informed.
For one if we hold to believers being filled by the spirit, than there is no misconception of not being spirit informed. Do we not say effectually called to the gospel? But that is not the thrust of your statement is it?
I feel I know where you are heading with this and in all attitudes I would say yes we should be. But I believe that is a by product of our insatiable appetite for knowledge in the form of books, blogs and mp3’s, in a good way that is fueled by our theology to understand God’s purpose. The polarization of this of course in my mind is we have become less informed spiritually and more learnt in the art of theological prose. The simplicity of spirit-informed is drowned out by the static of the world’s noise.
Ps. 46.10 come to mind ESV.
Secondly I suppose, is if we adhere to the belief of progressive revelation, than there is no excuse to not be spiritually-informed, more so than the apostles or even unto the apostolic church fathers down through the ages of time. I often ponder this when contemplating the passing of the torch, is the latter better than the former in the rites of passage? Time will tell in this emerging generation I believe.
November 11th, 2009 | 10:15 pm | #19
That may be the most evasive answer I have ever read, but maybe the question was at fault. Let me try this question another way.
Let’s assume for a moment that saying the Apostles’ Creed during worship (or any creed for that matter — the form is not really important) is an innovation in the model of worship practiced by the apostles. Given that doing it is not actually a violation of the principles of the apostles (it is, after all, a summary of some of their beliefs), are we somehow better-instructed than the apostles to have the creed? Does the creed become something necessary for us which they did not have?
November 12th, 2009 | 12:25 am | #20
Yes perhaps so. All heresies came from interpreting the bible from times past, so it would reason we have a better handle on an authentic spirit/informed filled experience gained from the ones that went before us. We could hammer this one until the cows come home, no pun intended LOL, but seriously we have many “good saints” before us to help pave the way to a deeper understanding of the Bible. That does not mean what we do today is in alignment with the past per say. We do “the Church” have a tendency to float around on the edges of non-essentials and debate them furiously in an irenic fashion and yet remain true to the core.
Just to recap and hit the hay before I make a mistake here.
1. I agree we tend to know more, whether it’s applied in the same manner is open for debate e.g. Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy
2. Again perhaps there is insight to a furthering or better said fleshing out the nuances of our faith. But again it depends on were one adheres to P C or O
3. finally as Paul said in Ephesians “it is by grace you have been saved by faith” nothing has changed with this statement for 1900 yrs+. I do not believe we need much more, what do you think?
November 12th, 2009 | 8:30 am | #21
I disagree with 1 but do not find it relevant (sorry); I agree with 2, but probably not in a way you would necessarily mean; I agree with 3 but find it too minimalistic.
So regarding 2: I think the faith is wholly and sufficiently expounded in the Bible; the question is whether or not we have received it and treat it as sufficient. For the record, I think that the Bible will produce the effect it says it will produce, which is the worship of God from every tribe, tongue and nation — which will not look like either a global Magisterium nor a global Baptist Convention. The idea that the Gospel will only produce one kind of people culturally is absurd at its core. So there may be cultural/pragmatic differences among the people God has created and called out, but they are still “called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
In that, I find (3) minimalistic and insufficient for daily practice. That’s not hardly the whole message of the Bible nor of the NT in particular even if it is the central message, or the very core. It is the one foundation upon which whatever is built gets built, the very rock of the church — but it is not hardly everything. How does Sola Fide/Sola gratia work when I have to go to work when my whole family is home sick with the flu? What’s the application? It may inspire or lead to applications, and I think you can find guidance and solace in the Bible which requires those key solas at that moment, but those by themselves are simply not the whole of the life of faith.
November 12th, 2009 | 9:19 am | #22
“are we more spiritually-informed than the Apostles?”
I wonder if “a student is not better than his teacher” applies here. We are learning from them, so if there’s a disconnect, it’s on our end not theirs.
It’s also significant that biblical study and exegesis has, at its core, that question “What was Paul really saying here”.
Which assumes that he was saying something in particular, that he knew what it was that he was saying, and that we are trying to be faithful to that.
So it seems plain that we are not more spiritually informed than they.
November 12th, 2009 | 10:28 am | #23
In regards to (3) I am not so sure how having a simple faith as in “believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved” could be construed a minimalist. If we propel ourselves back in time to the very beginnings of the early church. We would find a different set of practices than what we portray today generally speaking in an evangelical sense, I believe; For example taking care of widows, orphans, and the sick. Giving to the poor, breaking of the bread and partaking of the wine daily I believe. Saying the Lord’s Prayer and fellowshipping as a community or family as it may be termed. Very simple structures to the worship experience, perhaps not so unlike the worshipping of Yahweh in the temple periods, a very methodical sanctifying experience. Moving forward we have ecumenical counsels, creeds and reformation to edify the church’s position in a world view that is intolerant to Christianity. Of which is needed to define Christianities doctrine of Grace.
The Problem now is everyone wants to inject something new or something unrevealed has if by missing the point for decades. Prime example Dispensationalism, a view exposed less than 200 yrs ago and is at the forefront of Christianity in many prominent Denominational churches e.g. Baptist for example of which I am. But this is neither here nor there and quite honestly have I digressed from the OP’s comment, yes I believe so.
Wrapping up things, I would label myself a Centralist and only to the degree of rallying around the core essentials of our faith. All the other bells and whistles to borrow a pun have no rooting effect upon the gospel. The problem and this goes back to the original thought, is, that the sanctity of the church has been absorbed by the culture to the degree of tolerance is acceptable in the worship experience and with that so is the effectual teaching ability of the Pastors, elders, deacons and teachers so contemporized as to lose the authenticity of the core of Christendom. Without this new face the churches would become empty like they are presently so in Europe. The last time I checked there is only one way to God, amen.
In regards to (2) I agree here completely, and at present I am going through Ephesians’ in Class now and one of the topics that comes up is, in the one people of God, are we (gentiles absorbed into the Jewish spiritualness of worshipping God through Christ) rooted in the context of God’s covenantal promises including the new covenant as one people of God in a Jewish/temple like surreal experience (excluding the ceremonial rites e.g. sacrifices, atonements, holy of holies, etc…). Or are we one people of God without the ethnicity of Israel and it is only one people of God all the other promises, land, blessings, etc. are realized or replaced and no more.
In regards to (1) no excuses. Late at night and mind wondering. I was thinking about who would know more for example, Polycarp a disciple of John or (*I’m drawing a blank) next after Polycarp. And multiple this down the line until the present, sorry for the confusion.
Enjoy the conversation Frank
Shalom Peace,
Bryant
November 12th, 2009 | 10:56 am | #24
Daryl –
So what if we develop a way of doing something which, all told, Paul wants us to do and we say, “That’s the best way to do it?” For example: liturgy. While I see the benefits of formal liturgy, I see the way liturgy is adopted today in all forms (including the non-liturgy of us puny baptists) as doin something because of our systematic understanding of something and not because that’s actually what paul wanted us to do.
My point, really, is simple: how do we balance the robust implications of the Gospel and of Scripture against our natural tendancy to build monuments and rules?
November 12th, 2009 | 11:02 am | #25
Bryant — you said “it is by grace you have been saved by faith”, not “believing in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved”. The former is the means; the latter is the method or mode. If we can agree on that, I think I can agree in principle with want you just said, and we can quibble over your interpretation of the end of Acts 2 another time.
And do not get me started on Dispensationalism. ugh.
:-)
November 12th, 2009 | 11:52 am | #26
“So what if we develop a way of doing something which, all told, Paul wants us to do and we say, “That’s the best way to do it?””
Then we’re saying the wrong thing. We should probably be saying “That’s the best way we could think of doing it, today.” While recognizing that there may be better ways right now, and there will be different ways later.
It all goes back to the foundation doesn’t it? But we tend to make the old monuments and rules the foundation, rather than the Scripture itself.
Here’s an example. One thing that drives me a little crazy about the WHI (although I like most of what they do) is when they call people back to reformed tradition when attempting to delineate how Sunday mornings should be done.
Why do they do that? Why can Sunday morning not look different from Luther and Calvin’s day?
How often is Westminster quoted as authoritative rather than merely explanatory? Or Piper or (believe it or not) you?
We all naturally look for foundations other than Scripture don’t we?
In answer to your last question, I suppose we find that balance by remembering to build monuments and rules in honour of Scripture, rather than as “the way it ought to be done”.
November 12th, 2009 | 12:36 pm | #27
Agreed, another time LOL
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact