Kelly’s Blog

HT to Pr. Pete for this Christianity Today / Zondervan study. It deals with “5 kinds of Christians,” and it’s worth a read-through. The basic gist of is that there are a lot of people who claim the name of Christian, but are biblically illiterate, feel they don’t need a church community, and so on. Some of the points in the article are well-made; several are troublesome. For example, it’s true that Christians need to read and study God’s Word more, reach out to their communities and share the love of Jesus more, and get rid of the prevalent consumeristic and individualistic mindset that many Christians cultivate which leaves them to “do faith” themselves. The strange thing is the article seems to speak out both sides of the mouth.

On the one hand, it derides the notion of an intellectual faith which focuses on heavy doctrinal teaching; one pastor is quoted: “We have to not focus on explaining Pauline theology, but on the person and ministry of Christ. We have to be people who live out the life of Christ. People aren’t generally interested in theological teaching. But everyone has a heart for the one who had a heart for us.” (Here I thought that Paul was all about communicating the person and ministry of Christ; that doctrine- teaching- was how we find out about Jesus in the first place.) On the other hand, the article suggests we shouldn’t simply give people what they want, because what they tend to want is rather shallow, and they end up biblically illiterate.

On the one hand, it praises house churches and non-traditional models for providing the sort of community and relevance people feel that they need from church; on the other, pastors admit that by striving for “excellence” (which they have defined as more screens, hip music, more entertainment, etc.), they are encouraging people to church shop and disconnect themselves fom real Christian community.

By the way, the “five kinds of Christians” described are (in order of “real-ness”, I presume): Active, Professing, Liturgical, Private, and Cultural. Here’s how they are described:

Active Christians 19%

• Believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ
• Committed churchgoers
• Bible readers
• Accept leadership positions
• Invest in personal faith development through the church
• Feel obligated to share faith; 79% do so.

Professing Christians 20%

• Believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ
• Focus on personal relationship with God and Jesus
• Similar beliefs to Active Christians, different actions
• Less involved in church, both attending and serving
• Less commitment to Bible reading or sharing faith

Liturgical Christians 16%

• Predominantly Catholic and Lutheran
• Regular churchgoers
• High level of spiritual activity, mostly expressed by serving in church and/or community
• Recognize authority of the church

Private Christians 24%

• Largest and youngest segment
• Believe in God and doing good things
• Own a Bible, but don’t read it
• Spiritual interest, but not within church context
• Only about a third attend church at all
• Almost none are church leaders

Cultural Christians 21%

• Little outward religious behavior or attitudes
• God aware, but little personal involvement with God
• Do not view Jesus as essential to salvation
• Affirm many ways to God
• Favor universality theology

This was my initial reaction to the break-down:

Adding up the percentages gives you 100%, which leads me to think that these categories are supposed to be non-overlapping. “Active” and “professing” Christians are listed separately from “liturgical” Christians. No mention is made of the beliefs of the liturgical ones, other than the fact that they accept church authority– which would incline me, if I were Joe Cool reading this out of Christianity Today, to think that these people didn’t have a clue what they believed at all, but just went along with whatever the boss thinks.

And from the descriptions, “private” and “cultural” Christians aren’t really Christians. Probably quite a few readers would be inclined to think that maybe the last three categories aren’t really Christians. After all, only the first two groups are said to believe in salvation through Jesus.

Overall– disturbing, but not too surprising, I guess. I don’t like the distinction made between “active” and “professing,” personally. Usually when people talk about a professing Christian versus an active one, they’re hinting that this person *says* they’re a Christian, but hmmm, I dunno, they don’t really have their act together; not quite as pious as those active folk over there. A Christian is a Christian.

Now that I’ve read a little more of the article, maybe I understand better. Here’s another quote from the article: “What About Jesus? In addition to these findings about the church, we found a most defining dichotomy over the Jesus question: Active and Professing Christians said ‘accepting Christ as Savior and Lord’ is the key to being a Christian (almost 9 in 10), while Liturgical, Private, and Cultural Christians favored more generally ‘believing in God’ as the main element in being a Christian. So, for a vast number of people who consider themselves Christian, Christ is not the central figure of their faith.”

Reality check. Just because someone doesn’t speak the modern tongue of “Zondervanese” doesn’t mean that Christ isn’t the central focus of their faith. I can’t speak for those Catholics and Lutherans (”Liturgical Christians”) who were interviewed– maybe they hit a liberal bunch– but a “liturgical Christian” doesn’t generally believe in the same sort of decision theology that other “active” Christians do that would lead them to speak of accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior as the main thing to being a Christian. If by “believing in God,” I could interpret that as “trust in the saving work of the Trinity for my salvation, chiefly the death and resurrection of Christ,” I’d use that anyday over a phrase that places my works of obedience, commitment, and moral choices over and above God’s work. At any rate, why would a Catholic or Lutheran, with a much more historical faith, use terms and phrases from just the last century or so to describe the central importance of the faith?

In short, I have a feeling that liturgical Christians are generally lumped in with the other non-Christians mentioned in the study: “nominally Christian,” but not really saved after all.