John, one other factor in the last 40? or maybe even 50? years was the growth of the CCM music scene, which added significantly to the homogenization of "Christian evangelical culture." I once heard a major "artist" say in a small group something to the effect of, "Yeah, we've learned not stray far from a very generic [i.e., not at all denominational!! or distinctively group-oriented] message in our song-writing. The road to success is to be generic." That is both disturbing and also symptomatic of much of what happened with CCM and also, I'd say, with the "worship music" genre. Music has power.
I’ve been thinking this sort of thing for a while, though I called it theological levelling rather than theological homogenisation (both terms are good think). I think this is partly just a part of being in a much more interconnected world with greater reach of media and greater interaction between people of different backgrounds. Because, especially historically but still today, churches are not just theologically situated but also geographically and culturally situated. But if those boundaries blur with increased interconnection then theology may also blur. I also wonder if it’s in response to the rise of the nones. In a culture, as it was more so in the past (at least nominally), where most people are Christian on some level, differences between Christians and denominations are more relevant. But as the proportion of people who are non-religious rises, the difference between, say, a Southern Baptist and a Methodist are less than between them and a non-religious person, such that if you want to bring more nones back to religion, you’re gonna play down the differences between denominations.
I also think social change can be a major factor. I’m British and I grew up in an evangelical Anglican Church, before going to a Baptist church for a couple of years as a teenager before returning to my home Anglican Church. And whilst I think I recognised differences between my Anglican and Baptist church, partly in culture (e.g: style of worship) and structure, I don’t think I saw them as that different. In contrast however, my grandparents were Methodists, and they always saw themselves as distinctly “non-conformist” - a term used to describe (largely evangelical) non-Anglican Protestant groups in the UK. But no one really says “non-conformist” anymore. And I don’t think this has just been a matter of theological levelling. Though that’s defo a part of it (as both a cause and a symptom), I think a big part of it has been the decreased social dominance of Anglicanism in the UK, largely as a result of the increase of the nones, and in tandem with theological levelling.
What I also find interesting though is that I think whilst theology has become much less of a dividing line between evangelical groups, I think social issues has become much more of a dividing line. Many denominational splits in the last couple of decades have been in response not to differences of theology (though they’re often theological issues aswell in a sense), but on social issues, like LGBT issues, and women’s ordination. I think that reflects broader polarisation in our society.
This is a great piece, especially the timeline that combines the personal and political. Some thoughts:
1. "Non-denominational" versus "generic" seems like an important distinction. I think non-denominational Christianity could be one of the healthiest things to happen to it, if the religious institutions could follow, rather than lead, the spiritual and non-doctrinal made manifest in people's lives who more obviously and clearly act like Jesus in the world. Some of those people are atheists, but even that annoyance to doctrinaire Christians could be ignored through more inter-denominational dialogue, which I can't help but think would finally lead to a healthier obliteration of sectarian distinction than the simple "new generation of non-believers" way of handling things;
2. More locally, it's time for Christianity to get involved in the worst half-century of our nation's history since 1862-1912. That, by the way, is the half-century indicated by "make America great again." That's where the so-called Christians voting Republican want to take us. A more bedrock change needs to be made, just as it needs to be made with the US Constitution, in the language. No more Leviticus employed as if it were part of the Gospels and rationalized by the "fulfilment of the covenant" argument opportunists use for gay bashing. The mega-church rock band Christianity of commercializing feel-good versions that dissuade believers from their responsibilities as followers of Jesus (and I don't mean picketing and spitting outside women's clinics)--if that's not torn down then it needs to be "re-messaged" as the corporate types say.
3. To do that, Christians need to cope with the historical, contextual, and textual realities of "the Bible," starting with the fact that there isn't just one. The whole program needs an upgrade, an update, a reconsideration of the frank absurdities that have been preached for centuries about what Jesus means to us (which too often means, "how we can profit off Jesus"). The corporatization of Christianity has been its worst enemy. Archbishop Shelby Spong wrote "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," which I think strikes the right tone for an overdue reform, calling for a core change in how the whole religion needs to be re-articulated to address spiritual, not doctrinal, living. Then denominations mattering less will, well, matter less. Because the practice of Christianity, which is nearly impossible, will be driven by quiet humility and not, for instance, James Dobson.
Non-denominational could be great if it modeled openness and valued questions. Unfortunately, many non-denom churches are more rigid that their denominational counterparts. And as others have observed, too much focus on performative affect in place of scriptural and theological depth allows people to play at being Christian without being disciples.
John, one other factor in the last 40? or maybe even 50? years was the growth of the CCM music scene, which added significantly to the homogenization of "Christian evangelical culture." I once heard a major "artist" say in a small group something to the effect of, "Yeah, we've learned not stray far from a very generic [i.e., not at all denominational!! or distinctively group-oriented] message in our song-writing. The road to success is to be generic." That is both disturbing and also symptomatic of much of what happened with CCM and also, I'd say, with the "worship music" genre. Music has power.
Yes, that is another huge piece.
I’ve been thinking this sort of thing for a while, though I called it theological levelling rather than theological homogenisation (both terms are good think). I think this is partly just a part of being in a much more interconnected world with greater reach of media and greater interaction between people of different backgrounds. Because, especially historically but still today, churches are not just theologically situated but also geographically and culturally situated. But if those boundaries blur with increased interconnection then theology may also blur. I also wonder if it’s in response to the rise of the nones. In a culture, as it was more so in the past (at least nominally), where most people are Christian on some level, differences between Christians and denominations are more relevant. But as the proportion of people who are non-religious rises, the difference between, say, a Southern Baptist and a Methodist are less than between them and a non-religious person, such that if you want to bring more nones back to religion, you’re gonna play down the differences between denominations.
I also think social change can be a major factor. I’m British and I grew up in an evangelical Anglican Church, before going to a Baptist church for a couple of years as a teenager before returning to my home Anglican Church. And whilst I think I recognised differences between my Anglican and Baptist church, partly in culture (e.g: style of worship) and structure, I don’t think I saw them as that different. In contrast however, my grandparents were Methodists, and they always saw themselves as distinctly “non-conformist” - a term used to describe (largely evangelical) non-Anglican Protestant groups in the UK. But no one really says “non-conformist” anymore. And I don’t think this has just been a matter of theological levelling. Though that’s defo a part of it (as both a cause and a symptom), I think a big part of it has been the decreased social dominance of Anglicanism in the UK, largely as a result of the increase of the nones, and in tandem with theological levelling.
What I also find interesting though is that I think whilst theology has become much less of a dividing line between evangelical groups, I think social issues has become much more of a dividing line. Many denominational splits in the last couple of decades have been in response not to differences of theology (though they’re often theological issues aswell in a sense), but on social issues, like LGBT issues, and women’s ordination. I think that reflects broader polarisation in our society.
This is a great piece, especially the timeline that combines the personal and political. Some thoughts:
1. "Non-denominational" versus "generic" seems like an important distinction. I think non-denominational Christianity could be one of the healthiest things to happen to it, if the religious institutions could follow, rather than lead, the spiritual and non-doctrinal made manifest in people's lives who more obviously and clearly act like Jesus in the world. Some of those people are atheists, but even that annoyance to doctrinaire Christians could be ignored through more inter-denominational dialogue, which I can't help but think would finally lead to a healthier obliteration of sectarian distinction than the simple "new generation of non-believers" way of handling things;
2. More locally, it's time for Christianity to get involved in the worst half-century of our nation's history since 1862-1912. That, by the way, is the half-century indicated by "make America great again." That's where the so-called Christians voting Republican want to take us. A more bedrock change needs to be made, just as it needs to be made with the US Constitution, in the language. No more Leviticus employed as if it were part of the Gospels and rationalized by the "fulfilment of the covenant" argument opportunists use for gay bashing. The mega-church rock band Christianity of commercializing feel-good versions that dissuade believers from their responsibilities as followers of Jesus (and I don't mean picketing and spitting outside women's clinics)--if that's not torn down then it needs to be "re-messaged" as the corporate types say.
3. To do that, Christians need to cope with the historical, contextual, and textual realities of "the Bible," starting with the fact that there isn't just one. The whole program needs an upgrade, an update, a reconsideration of the frank absurdities that have been preached for centuries about what Jesus means to us (which too often means, "how we can profit off Jesus"). The corporatization of Christianity has been its worst enemy. Archbishop Shelby Spong wrote "Why Christianity Must Change or Die," which I think strikes the right tone for an overdue reform, calling for a core change in how the whole religion needs to be re-articulated to address spiritual, not doctrinal, living. Then denominations mattering less will, well, matter less. Because the practice of Christianity, which is nearly impossible, will be driven by quiet humility and not, for instance, James Dobson.
Non-denominational could be great if it modeled openness and valued questions. Unfortunately, many non-denom churches are more rigid that their denominational counterparts. And as others have observed, too much focus on performative affect in place of scriptural and theological depth allows people to play at being Christian without being disciples.