In the past, American Protestants have had two different kinds of church cultures. They emerged out of the colonial First Awakening of the 1730s-40s. One side emphasized religious emotions as the essence of being a Christian; feeling the love of God was most important. The other side taught that the heart of true religion is right thinking; emotions are fickle and often lead one astray.
Historically since the Reformation, pastors of established mainline churches were university educated. It is no coincidence that the Reformers were a university professor and a sophisticated lawyer. Pastors in my heritage were and are taught by professors lecturing them. I know that the majority of Bible studies in our churches are lectures to the members by the pastor. No one else could be trusted to have the right knowledge.
The problem with one-way lectures is that they are absolutely the least effective way of communication, especially if you want to change someone’s behavior. Job behavior is shaped much more by informal communication with those around you. On-the-job training is so effective because you learn by doing. Worker effectiveness is shaped much more from these two sources than from the formal job description given to you.
For two millennia Latin-based primary schooling taught grammar, logic and rhetoric. You learned rhetoric by mastering grammar and logic. The prevailing assumption was that good rhetoric will persuade others to change their behavior. If you could just explain clearly, others will do accordingly. If you just got your doctrinal propositions right, believers would understand and behave accordingly. If you just gave children the right catechism, they will understand what they should do and do it.
How foolish this assumption seems today in light of discoveries in motivational and educational psychology.
Today in Protestantism the two kinds of cultures are blending into the expanding non-denominational community church movement. They have become competition contributing to the decline of denominational churches.
Leaders of mainline churches do not have to change their distinctive theology to stabilize and grow in the future. But they can and should change their assumptions and fine-tune some of their practices.
The first assumption to go is that leaders can continue to depend on family loyalties to gain young adults. Clearly, the behaviors and beliefs of young adults are changing in American society, in a direction away from their parents’ values.
The second assumption to go is that leaders can fashion their church culture solely on their beliefs and values. They need to pay closer attention to the behavior part of their church culture. Established churches are now in competition with non-denominational congregations, where participants base their involvement not so much on beliefs but on what is happening in the congregation and in their personal lives. Doing well against the competition has to be a major factor in shaping traditional ministry practices. Mainline leaders have to pay more attention to “what works” in attracting future participants.
In business terms, traditional churches have depended on theological engineering. We need to get better at church marketing. Read about how Paul thought as a marketer in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22.
Comparing the two cultural approaches to biblical learning and teaching, how can mainline churches and those called evangelicals find more common ground?
That is certainly the key question for our times. My intent is to contribute to that discussion. In the past I have used the distinction between substance and style. We can change the style without changing the theological substance. That is hard in my church body for many to comprehend. The first step is to recognize differences in church culture.
I think that we have a choice to make. In worship what is the most important—the words or the music that goes with the words? The operative question about a worship service is either: Did I like it or did God like it. How do we choose?
What God likes most, according to Jesus, is being worshiped in spirit as well as truth. The truth part is easy. Touching human spirits is the challenge. What moves human spirits depends on their personal backgrounds and their previous worship experiences. Over time those who are touched by traditional hymnody will decrease because fewer young adults are in those services. The best arrangement, of course, is to offer both types of worship, done as well as possible.
That is exactly what I have experienced over the past 20 years of actually getting out into our community every month to do P.A.C.K. (Planned Acts of Christian Kindness). Through simple surprising acts of kindness it became so easy to share the love of Christ with everyone because we did it through giving or doing something. Bringing His love to life for the recipients and inviting them to our church/school/youth programs… where they can begin their faith journey with Jesus. The biggest blessings of all come to those who simply put themselves out there for the Holy Spirit to use. They are the ones that witness the power of the Holy Spirit at work firsthand. Through loving on everyday people that look like you and I on the outside the Holy Spirit is able to unlock the heart in seconds to reveal a serious crisis they are squarely in the midst of and this all happens with precision timing leaving you with absolutely no doubt as to His divine presence. Truly moving and unforgettable “God moments” that serve to boost your faith through the roof! The more P.A.C.K. you do the more and different ways the Lord reveals Himself to you. As your faith deepens so does your willingness and ability to share it with others. P.A.C.K. is a totally FREE program you can get just by signing up at: https://www.acts18.org/christian-kindness-program. The link to the download will be immediately provided. P.A.C.K. has now been downloaded in 107 countries around the world. Come and walk a little closer with the Lord!
What a wonderful statement. I agree fully with acts of Christian kindness. We work hard at that through planned Servant Events. Christians today are judged more by what they do than what they say. My personal challenge is to find ways to help believers recognize those “God moments” in their lives and then share them with others. Such conversations are forms of encouragement about the presence and power of the Spirit in our daily lives. How can we promote those conversations?
In this changing world “we need to change our assumptions & practices” is a far cry from what should always be our main focus which is Christ Crucified. I don’t think we need advertising programs on Radio & TV to “sell” a Christian life, this doesn’t come down to marketing but “going out into the highways & byways as Paul & the early leaders of our Church did. My take on why younger people don’t attend the establish churches is they don’t want to get hung up on our liturgy, they would rather sing praise songs that were written within the last two centuries, preferably in the last 30 years, the feel good about our God & what’s wrong with that. I believe we should invite into our services the holy Spirit & talk much more about the neglected third person when were up there with the message. What’s wrong with proclaiming Jesus dying on the cross for my sins? Isn’t that what we want to get across?
Lord be with you in everything you say & do.
God Bless, Bob Leech Nursing Home Ministries
Agreed. Conventional promotion through advertising has little value. But we do need to get the attention of the unchurched. We do that best with our actions personally living out lives committed to Christ under the power of the Holy Spirit.
My take on worship is that indeed believers want to sing our their relation to God, as directly as possible rather than sing about God. I think the evidence keeps growing that contemporary praise and worship songs touch participants in more meaningful ways than hymnody of previous centuries when they have not grown up in traditional congregations. Jesus wants us to worship God in spirit and truth. The truth part is easy. Touching spirits is the challenge.
I totally disagree with the premise! The churches that historically do the best over time are those that preach the Gospel message. We don’t need a new smoke machine or disco balls, we don’t need a participatory conference where all viewpoints are considered, we need people committed to Christ. This is not a “come and try us out” affair. Christ never said commitment to Him was optional. There is no glitz on “come, follow me.” I have experienced in the vein of what is being proposed in this new approach is the concept that the Lord’s Supper is an evangelism event. It is for believers, who repent of their sins, have confessed Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, and have been baptized in the name of the Triune God. In the end, no one has a vote on this. Only God, and in His Holy Word He is pretty clear. There will be a lot of surprised folks on the last day.
Agreed. We don’t need smoke or disco balls. Most people see through the fluff.
But we do need to invite the unchurched to come and try us out. That’s the basic mission challenge. We do need to demonstrate the value of the Gospel in daily living. That’s what the early Christians did. When we do the basic words and actions, the rest is up to the Holy Spirit. The issue is how we can do our part most effectively.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing from the Word of Christ.
I left the world of enthusiasts over 10 years ago. I prefer faith to feelings, thank you
Enthusiasts are coming from the feeling emphasis. Mainline are coming from the rational emphasis. Each can and should correct the extremes of other. That’s what I am promoting. A little more emphasis on experience does not mean buying the whole agenda and practices of those who speak in tongues.
The issue is how do you get people outside the church to pay attention the God’s Word? Christ enacted his Word. That’s our challenge today. The unchurched will pay attention more to how believers act out the Word than they will to how we proclaim it.
There are always trade-offs. I have served as Co-President of Michigan’s State Board of Education and the embarrassing conclusion of several studies is that the most effective method, especially for the weakest students, is direct instruction, and this includes lecture. Certainly one-on-one training is more effective, but it is less efficient. Often it is a decision between training few people more or more people less. With fewer people in church, I suppose we can make a virtue of necessity.
Of course some of the most effective ministries, judging from income and popularity, are the media based book-and-lecture of Joyce Meyer. Or would you say she is more entertainment than ministry?