This means that there is a cynical attitude forming in the hearts of American Christendom towards those around us. To further prove this point, the Barna Group reported on the people responsible for the lower demographic as:

Two-thirds of evangelical Christians (64%) and three out of every five Hispanics (60%) embraced that position, making them the groups most convinced of the shift in America’s default faith… People who said they are politically conservative, however, saw things differently than did the rest of the country: a slight majority of conservatives claimed that Christianity remains the natural choice of most Americans.

My question is simply why?

What has changed? Christians still make up three fourths of the American population and yet a vast majority of evangelical Christians don’t seem to believe that offspring born in this country are naturally inclined to be Christian?

It could be due to the emphasis that the evangelical arm of the faith has placed on a personal decision to become a christian. Yet I don’t think that is accurate, I wonder how much of it stems from the preaching and message we hear? Yes there are a lot of non-Christians in America (25% or roughly 75 million people).

What do you think? Are Americans likely to become Christians?

Source: Barna Group Report
Image St. Patrick’s Cathedral by Saquan Stimpson/monstershaq2000

Tyler Wigg-Stevenson’s Argument

His four main points boil down into (in my summary):

1. The christian life is about Grace and Love not your personal goals, so we can’t sell you something to help you attain your goals.
2. Since consumerism is based on perpetuating discontentment and satisfaction from new purchases, marketing the church follows the same model. This doesn’t reflect the biblical push to find contentment in God alone (IE not needing anything but God for our contentment).
3. Brand Relativism (um, commonly known as Brand Affiliation or Brand Association) leads people to believe that something is better than something else when they are just cars, cities, and computers. The only difference is preference. Thus ‘spiritual shoppers’ think of Christianity as only one option among many.
4. Fragmentation/Niches that are the focus of marketing campaigns are the reason for the distention and lack of unity in the church. Because we market to individual groups in relevant ways (that likely don’t appeal to everyone) we are conforming to the pattern of the world.

His conclusion cutting it down, but never the less in his words.

Consumerism is here to stay. The habits described above—self-creation, discontent, relativism, fragmentation—will become more dominant, not less, in years to come. That’s the way of the globalized economy and ascendant transnational commercial interests. We cannot defeat our situation; we can only seek to live faithfully in it…

But problems begin when we define the church as a whole using a comparison that just describes one of its attributes: i.e., treating the church as a business with a brand to promote. And then, even though there are all sorts of ways the church isn’t like a business, we begin to employ all the tools of commercial enterprise as though we were paying the body of Christ some compliment by treating it like a Fortune 500 company, with a bottom line, investor returns, supply chain, CEOS, market share, and so on. If we treat the gospel like a commodity, can we fault nonbelievers for thinking that the cross is just another logo?

My Response

While I have loads to say about his 8 page article, I will be brief, if anyone wishes me to write more on any point please simply ask in the comments section.

1. We are selling something! We are asking, just as Jesus did, for people to spend everything they have to get their right relationship with Jesus back. You might not like this, but it is the reality of scripture. That everything includes finances, life direction, goals, personality, everything. This is why the rich young ruler walked away in tears, because the cost was to great.
2. Yes true, we are called to be satisfied by God alone. Yet when Paul preached on Mars Hill I don’t recall him demanding instant life change, instead used their culture to reach them where they are in a way that made contextual/cultural sense. Much like marking a church does today… Contentment in God is a result, not a selling point. Just as being a disciple of Jesus was the selling point, not martyrdom.
3. Christianity is only one of many options. It is one we believe to be true, and we believe God to not be diminished by our choice for or against him. If you want to reach someone who doesn’t believe that you have to speak their language…
4. Did you really equate the result of niche based marketing to the bloody violence that took place in Northern Ireland? Wow. Different people groups and niches have different spiritual/physical/emotional needs and will respond to different messages. We preach differently to parents than we do to kids. I counsel a single urban mother, differently from a suburban high school male, differently from an urban farmer in his 70s.

In general I feel like he has a lot of great theology to back up his points from what i can tell (without reading his newly released book). My problem is that he seems to have forgotten the contextual nature of Christianity and I get this feeling from the article that he believes there was some idyllic point at which it was done correctly. Yet in his last paragraph he admits that those who came to Christ during his ministry expected something wholly different, and now 2000 years later we are suppose to prepare the expectations of those coming to Christ than Christ himself did?

It just seems laced with retreatism to me, as though he would rather we abandon marketing and living in a consumerist culture (even though we hold the key to escape the endless loop of consumerism). His stated objections to our strategy of proclaiming the gospel to the world and interacting with the world (as Christ himself did) make me very concerned about his conclusions.

We must market, we must place positive images alongside the sexual/consumerist material that exists in our culture or we will continue to remain sidelined and irrelevant.

I was wondering where he studied marketing that he speaks so admittedly against it, because everything I found on him says he hasn’t. He also doesn’t lead a church that would need marketing. So kind of wondering why he felt he could write this book. Any insights on that?

Background on Wigg-Stevenson

For those interested what i could find online briefly: He’s a Baptist Pastor/Preacher thought not currently residing over a church. Got his M.Div at Yale Divinity School. Found this well done interview at Homiletics Online.

*Image From Flickr/WNPR – Connecticut Public Radio Taken By Catie Talarski

It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

This was such an interesting article because of the perspective it comes from, an atheist who grew up in Africa and how he has recognized the correlation between the works of faith, and faith itself. Could be potential sermon illustration.

Mr Parris goes on to describe his observations to back up the statement above and I highly recommend finishing the article.