I started reading a book the other day entitled “Religion in Modern Times: An Interpretive Anthology.” Written by two sociologists of religion (Paul Heelas and Linda Woodhead), the book is an exploration of both the nature and the future of several contemporary religions expressions. I am reading the book primarily because I like to stay in touch with what sociologists are saying about religious trends.
I found this point from the book to be particularly interesting:
“In short, we predict that a wide variety of religions will continue to coexist, but that the winners will be those which put people in touch with a God beyond self, make a difference, sustain supporting and affective communities, emphasize experience, have a political or economic job to do, and empower.”
Allow me to offer a couple of disclaimers. First, I am troubled by the concept of any religion being a “winner,” as though the search for religious truth were nothing more than a cultural competition, to be judged by smug sociologists. Second, regardless of the nature of contemporary religions trends and sociological speculation, I am absolutely convinced of the verity of the church’s traditional liturgical proclamation that “the church is of God and will be preserved to the end of time.” For me, in other words, sociological analysis of religious trends is not the final word in my ecclesiological framework. Rather, the final word for me is my conviction that the church, with all of its sin, is the bride of Christ—a bride whom God sees fit to preserve, regardless of what transpires in other religious expressions.
That said, in the quote recorded above, I am intrigued by what Heelas and Woodhead have highlighted as being the characteristics of the “winning” religion (that is, the religion that they believe will be left standing when all is said and done). According to Heelas and Woodhead, the surviving religion will embody these characteristics:
1. It will “put people in touch with a God beyond self”. (I see this as a reference to a consistent proclamation of a transcendent God, a God who is something other than the glorification of an elevated self.)
2. It will “make a difference.” (The “winning” religion, in other words, will have a significant impact both upon the lives of its adherents and upon the community in which they live.)
3. It will “sustain supporting and affective communities.” (Please make note of the adjective. It is not simply “effective” communities, but “affective” communities—that is, communities that care about the emotions and moods of their participants.)
4. It will “emphasize experience.” (Holistic experience is valued over truncated intellectualism.)
5. It will “have a political or economic job to do.” (The “winning” religion will be able to incarnate a clear societal mission and purpose.) And, finally,
6. It will “empower.” (Adherents will be taught, inspired, and equipped to live vibrantly and joyfully in the midst of an often-difficult world.)
Nothing too new here, right? In fact, what intrigues me most about these six characteristics is the way in which they found expression in the church community described in the second chapter of Acts, verses 43-47. Think for just a moment about that powerful biblical description of the work of the first century church:
“Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles” (empowerment).
“All who believed were together and had all things in common” (supporting and affective community).
“They would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need” (political and economic purpose).
“…they spent much time together in the temple; they broke bread from house to house and ate their food with glad and generous hearts” (holistic experience).
“…they [praised] God…” (proclamation of a God beyond self).
“And day by day, the Lord added to their number those who were being saved” (the capacity to make a difference).
What the sociologists have highlighted, then, is not a new ecclesiological typology. Instead, they have simply re-packaged, or at least re-articulated, what the early church incarnated nearly two-thousand years ago.
On a more personal level, in recent days, I have been utilizing this list of characteristics as a lens through which to examine the effectiveness of the church that I serve.
Is Central Highlands Church clear about its proclamation of a God beyond the collective “self” of its members? (I think that we are. My sense is that this issue in inseparably linked to the church’s sacramental life, and, more specifically, the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Since we added a third worship service—one in which the Lord’s Supper is celebrated weekly—I believe that our church’s worship life now has a deeper sense of the transcendent.)
Is Central Highlands Church making a difference? (I think that we are. We have worked hard in recent years to expand our ministry of outreach and to become more of a mission-minded and mission-driven church.)
Is Central Highlands Church establishing supportive and affective communities? (This is a real weakness for us, I believe. Protestant individualism is firmly entrenched in our ecclesiastical ethos. A consistent ministry of small groups or covenant groups is often discussed, but not yet implemented.)
Is Central Highlands Church cultivating opportunities for transforming experience? (This is “hit and miss” for us. Our worship life is becoming more experiential, I think. But we desperately need to grow in our ministry of communal prayer.)
Does Central Highlands Church have a political or economic job to do? (We are growing in this area. We are developing a deeper understanding of Jesus’ unique connection to the poor and the marginalized. The primary task at hand is to create some new ministries that will enable us to live in that connection.)
Does Central Highlands Church empower people in their discipleship? (I really believe that we do. I see evidence of this every day as I hear the stories of people making counter-cultural decisions for the sake of Jesus Christ.)
Sheesh. I’m sorry for such a long post. I simply intended to mention this new book that I am reading, and, well…you know how it goes.
At any rate, do these six characteristics of “winning” religious expressions sound about right to you? How do they fall upon your heart? And how do they shed light upon your community of faith?