I was reminded this week of an article that appeared last December in the Guardian, entitled “Is 2008 the year the ‘real meaning of Christmas’ debate resonates?” The article concluded with this line:
While the government hopes festive spending will help deliver us out of economic gloom, the church is hoping the credit crunch will deliver us from the commercialisation of Christmas into the arms of God. Who’s your money on?
Looking back over the six months that have transpired since Christmas, the evidence as to whether or not the credit crunch has delivered us into the arms of God is doubtful at best. In fact, an article appeared last week in The Economist entitled Church Attendance In Recessions: No Rush For Pews. What caught my eye was this:
On the campaign trail, Barack Obama famously claimed that blue-collar workers in Pennsylvania clung to religion because of bitterness over lost jobs. Americans are now truly fearful, as unemployment has mounted and house prices fallen. Yet the theory that church attendance grows in times of economic crisis seems to be a myth.
The article goes on to quote Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, as saying “to guess that attendance would increase [in recessions] is a common-sense assumption with no basis in data.”
The prediction alluded to in the Guardian article has been made every time we experience a massive downturn in the economy – that the economic crisis will lead to a massive revival in Christian faith, and unfortunately, as the Economist article points out, the two have not necessarily translated.
This same prediction was widely declared during the Great Depression. But noted writer and Christian thinker Thornton Wilder said that if a true revival is to take place, then we must find “new and persuasive words to replace defaced and degraded ones” (hat tip to Dr. Paul Zahl). What Mr. Wilder was saying is that we have to reclaim the core concepts of Christianity from the kitschy phrases and concepts that have infiltrated and replaced our understanding of who Jesus is, what he did for us, and why it matters.
But I would argue the point a little differently than Mr. Wilder. I would assert that, rather than coming up with new and persuasive words, we need to reclaim the old words of our faith and a real understanding of their meaning. We don’t need to rethink what we believe, we simply need to rediscover it.
COMMENTS
11 responses to “Have We Run From The Economic Crisis Into The Arms Of God?”
Leave a Reply
AWESOME POST, Jeff. Thanks.
Jeff,
This is a great post and I think you're totally correct about getting back to basics and delivering a message that is consistent with what "Jesus did and Paul taught" (my own hat-tip to the Very Rev. Dr. Zahl).
And, I don't want to speak for Dr. Zahl, but I think where he might be coming from on the "new, persuasive words" front has to do, not with the old, old story itself, but the way that it is being presented these days.
I think of terms such as "Gospel" and "Grace" and can't help but understand that the way they're offered these days is through the "prosperity" or "new perspective" definitions. They've done a great job of taking the truth and twisting it, sometimes ruining the old ways of speaking about Jesus' ministry and sacrifice.
This has left a new generation of sufferers without "ears to hear". So, to that end, i believe that there needs to be what Wilder called "new" words that can speak to the heart of the downtrodden and despairing.
But, either way, it IS the "same old song" that they need to hear. Who will sing it to them?
[Insert Mockingbird plug here]
John, Thanks Buddy!
Mike, I totally agree with you. In fact, I think we are saying the same thing.
You see, I just got back from a very, VERY liberal conference at Kanuga, and I could just see these "anglimergent" and "new perspective" people taking TW's "new and persuasive words" line and twisting it to justify what they are doing to destroy the old, old story.
I would never presume to refute PZ, and all I was trying to do was clarify what Wilder said, that what we have to do is find new ways to return to the core concepts of our faith. Rather than new perspectives, we need to rediscover the real concepts and what they mean.
So, I think we're on the same wavelength, no?
The disturbing thing to me about New Perspective boosters is that a lot of them consider themselves theological conservatives.
Remember that one of the biggest NPP writers nowadays is NT Wright.
If you are interested in reading a great article on the NPP, I can't recomend enough "The Attractions of the New Perspective(s) on Paul" by J. Ligon Duncan. It's easy to read and very thoughtful. Plus the guy includes a long quote by our own beloved PZ.
J- great post! Very interesting stuff. I can totally see how the "new and persuasive words" line could be abused. Ugh.
The challenge here, as you point out, is finding new language and imagery that captures/articulates the old story without changing it somehow. Which, as we all know, is much more difficult than it sounds! Yet despite the real dangers involved, I think we all agree that there is no more worthy task (ditto on the Mbird plug here…).
And I don't think there's anything wrong with working to reclaim the old words themselves at the same time.
To tell you the truth, I have used Dr. Paulson's opening to his first talk several times now with different groups (and of course always given him credit), when he built up how he was going to give us the Gospel, and then says simply "In the name of Jesus Christ, your sins are forgiven".
You can't get any closer to the "old" concepts of our faith than that. That's the core, that's straight from the lips of Jesus in the Gospels. And yet, presenting it in the way in which Dr. Paulson did was about as new and fresh as anything could possibly be, because we haven't had it shared with us in that manner before, even though it is just that simple and ancient and central to our belief.
This to me epitomizes rediscovering our faith, as opposed to rethinking it. And I think that's what we really need to be (and Mockingbird is) doing.
And I too would insert the Mocking Bird plug right about here:______,
because that's exactly what you all have been doing from the beginning. That's what drew me in, and that's what draws others to this blog.
Please don't tarry from the cross and please don't put anything in the way of the cross lest you distract from Christ crucified.
There is nothing new!
David
Clifford,
I saw that line, too, and at first took hope in it, but what worried me about it is the definition of "evangelical", which has unfortunately been on shifting sand in the past decade (or more).
Thinking of forty ears ago, I think we could assert that "evangelical" would have referred to bible believing, gospel centered preaching (think Billy Graham), but lately that same classification has included the likes of Brian McLaren and Rob Bell, leaders of the neo-gnostic emergent church movement who are clearly NOT bible believing, and Rick Warren and the very pelagian "deeds not creeds–what would Jesus do" movement, who love the law but are light on gospel.
These have both been areas of tremendous growth in the last decade, and I think what has happened has simply increased the rate of decay in the modern church.
So, I question the assertion in the article that the evangelical movement has grown fifty percent. I think that perhaps that growth has been in areas that are clearly not "evangelical" per se.
Yup. If.
Well said, Clifford.
Clifford,
I couldn't agre with you more. Evangelical has become a tricky word to use. I think it would fall into Wilder's category of "defaced and degraded", but I, too, hope that it can be rehabilitated.