New Kinds of Christians? (pt. 2)

Old religious factions are volcanoes burned out; on the lava and ashes and squalid scoriæ of old eruptions grow the peaceful olive, the cheering vine, and the sustaining corn. — Edmund Burke

In part one of this consideration of Christianity in post-Christian culture, we looked at a couple of new Christian movements (Calvary Chapel and Vineyard) that grew out of the “Jesus Movement” of the late 60s counter-culture.  Next we’ll look at the late 20th-century emergence of influential “non-denominational” churches.  Before we go there, a brief review of the idea of “denominations” seems in order . . . .

Ever since the Reformation, Protestantism has been partly defined by denominational divisions.  First there were the various Protestant “traditions” (Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Anabaptists) with their particular theological, doctrinal, and national distinctions.  Then there were the next-generation denominational identities which grew out even more specifically defined differences in doctrine, polity, even ethnicity (Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Brethren, Mennonites, Methodists; and ultimately multiple “flavors” of each!).  Then a series of revivals–the Great Awakening, Cane Ridge, Azusa Street--and the unpenetrable racial divide created further sectarian distinctions within the existing denominations (particularly in America) and spawned even more sub-groups (such as Holiness and Pentecostal denominations)

As a result, the “most churched” country in the world was also the most “fractured” in appearance.  Nearly every American community has the classic “church on every corner” are near downtown where the classic steeples of the old mainline denominations still stand tall (while the congregations inside age and dwindle).  Yes, the 20th C. did bring about ecumenical efforts toward institutional unity:  Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutherans in particular gradually brought together many disparate groups withing their denominational ranks into single organizations.  The United Church of Christ even brought unrelated groups such as Congregational, German Reformed, and independent Christian churches (and worked to build broader alliances with other mainline groups).  But Baptists and Pentecostals remained divided by geography and race, and even the newer “Third Wave” fellowships such as Calvary Chapel and Vineyard were unable to resolve some of their theological differences and went their own ways.

The “Non-Denominational” Shift

Enter another “new kind of Christian” development:  the intentionally non-denominational church.  While this phenomenon is generally seen as a recent development, and often associated with the “seeker-sensitive” approach of places like Willow Creek in the Chicago suburbs, it, too, has historic roots.  During America’s Early National Period, something of an “American Reformation” took place as congregations began leaving Baptist, Presbyterian, and Methodist denominations to become known simply as Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, or Disciples of Christ.  Some of these “non-denominational” churches (the Disciples in particular) later developed very denominational-like institutional structures, but congregations generally retained a high degree of independence.  And even Willow Creek, which we’ll turn to next, was not as much of a new phenomenon in American religion as it might seem (read this article at Christianity today to learn more http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/november13/5.62.html)

As the church struggles to find relevance in a post-Christian culture, how far is it willing to go? Or is the answer not to try to “adapt” at all?  In the mid-90s, as the real-life Church was wrestling with these issues, Gary Trudeau’s popular Doonesbury strip ran an on-going series featuring “Rev. Scott Sloane” (a regular over the years), who has turned the old house where all the main characters lived during college into “The Little Church of Walden” (Walden was the name of their college).  Here’s a sampling . . .

WaldenChurch1 WaldenChurch2 WaldenChurch3

Seeker-Sensitivity

“When I left [the] classroom that day, I went out to my car, put my head on the steering wheel, and cried. The dream of being part of such a church had taken root in my soul.” — Bill Hybels

In 1972, 20-year-old Bill Hybels (quoted above) was a student at Trinity College.  The class he refers to in the quote, taught by professor Dr. Gilbert Bilezikian, was looking at the Church in the context of Jesus’s words in Matthew 16:18 (“I will build my Church”) and the description of the New Testament Church in Acts chapter 2.  This kind of Church, Hybels decides, was exactly what the world needed today.

By the 1970s, more people than ever in modern history (including me!) were completely disconnected from the Church.  Hybels and others, rather than seeing this as an obstacle, considered it an opportunity.  This generation of maturing baby-boomers could play a part in creating a new kind of Church, one that played the same role in their lives as the NT Church had played in the lives of early believers.  It would not be encumbered by the denominational baggage and formal traditions of the institutions they’d left behind in childhood.  It would be a real community of believers; one that would be relevant to the real lives and the real needs of its congregants.  Here’s how the online Encyclopedia of Chicago describes what happened (R. Jonathan Moore, http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2382.html):

In 1975 leaders of Son City, a successful youth program at Park Ridge’s South Park Church, decided to create a new ministry for unchurched adults. A door-to-door survey of the local community taught them why people stayed away from church. Incorporating contemporary music, drama, and multimedia technology, the new congregation first met on October 12, 1975, in Palatine’s Willow Creek Theater. Within two years worship services grew from 125 to 2,000 people. In 1981 the evangelical church moved to its current location in South Barrington and continued to increase in numbers and size on its sprawling campus. By 2000, it drew 15,000 for weekly services.

Led by Pastor Bill Hybels, Willow Creek Community Church became famous as the prototypical “megachurch,” widely imitated—and criticized—for its entertaining worship style and use of modern marketing strategies. “Seeker services” deliberately target the curious and the unchurched, while members worship at believer-oriented New Community services. To connect people to the church, Willow Creek has hundreds of small groups, devoted to everything from Bible study to singles’ fellowship to car repair. The affiliated Willow Creek Association publishes curriculum materials, runs leadership seminars, and encourages thousands of affiliated churches, extending its influence nationwide.

The Willow Creek phenomenon was indeed “widely imitated–and criticized.”  Notice how it was using the most influential elements of popular culture–contemporary music, drama, media, technology–to create “entertaining worship styles” (as did churches in the Calvary Chapel and Vineyard movements, countless other “non-denominational fellowships.” and eventually almost any church which desired to remain “relevant” to contemporary culture.”  It became known as the start of the “seeker-sensitive” approach to church, with services specifically aimed at “the curious and the unchurched” and separate meeting for believers (also “widely imitated–and criticized”!.  By the mid-90s, the phenomenon was culturally significant enough to warrant continued scrutiny in Doonesbury:

WaldenChurch5 WaldenChurch6 WaldenChurch7

Next:  From “Seekers” to “Emergents” . . . .

About Rick D. Williams

Teaching and writing have been my life's work for over two decades as a journalist and educator. My degrees in History were earned at Illinois State University, and I've done additional graduate work at Lincoln Christian Seminary and Urbana Theological Seminary. Over the years I’ve led conference workshops and authored articles and book chapters on topics ranging from religious education and international student ministry to state and local history.
This entry was posted in Worldviews. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to New Kinds of Christians? (pt. 2)

  1. Bailee Shappard says:

    In the paragraph before the comic you asked if not adapting at all was the way to go, I would say it is not. While the comics seem to pick on the idea of adding things to a church to attract more people I think it could be a good thing in moderation, much like what Brendan said in class. I believe a church should have a balance of staying in touch and trying to reach out to new people while staying true to God’s word and his teachings at the same time. For example, in the comic they offered yoga classes and food to get people into the church, this is in no way a bad idea as long as they are sure to mention that the building serves as a church as well. However, I think the people in the comic took it to far by not having a physical service in the building. An online platform for a church is an great way to reach out to even more people and for the people already with the church to stay in touch if they can’t make it to church on day for whatever reason. But a website should not be the only way you worship.

  2. Emma Fleming says:

    I often spend a lot of time criticizing the “user-friendly church.” I sometimes think these “mega-churches” become more about the people in the seats rather than God. Like the question Brian McLaren raises in the “The Postmodern Moment” article we read in class, I too wonder about my Christianity when I haven’t always bought into the mass, evangelist church method of today. But, even though I really don’t fit well into these non-denominational molds, that does not mean I should discredit the idea of modern evangelism. There is a lot of validity in spreading the word and spreading it everywhere, considering that is what God calls us to do in the first place. I am glad that these churches are reaching a wide variety of people since we live in a world were Christianity, and any other religion for that matter, is being forgotten.

    When I use my somewhat Presbyterian worldview and think on the non-denominational movement, I think of how much discord there really is between Christians (let alone between people of other faiths, or no faith). The fact that I criticize the “mega-churches” and the fact that maybe some members of the non-denominational church movement criticize the way I worship is actually the problem. It is so easy for us, myself included, to get so wrapped up in the ways we worship that we forget what it means to be a believer. Because of our sinful nature it is easy think negatively upon someone who disagrees with us, but in the end we must remember we are all here for the same reason.

  3. Taylor salmon says:

    I thought that this is a lot like what we discussed earlier in class, when discussing Willow creek movement. We discussed how to make church look more appealing to others in order to drag them in. A point that caught my attention that you made was, “As a result, the “most churched” country in the world was also the most “fractured” in appearance.” This caught my attention because even though America is the most “churched” we are not united like we should be. Instead we become separated.

  4. Tyler Alt says:

    “As a result, the “most churched” country in the world was also the most “fractured” in appearance.”

    This quote, in my opinion, is a sad but true statement not just about our country but also about the church. We preach a gospel of unity and fellowship but there are hundreds of different denominations. We as Christians understand this to be caused by slight differences in doctrine or methodology; but to a predominantly non-christian world we just look like a group of people having power struggles and petty disagreements that cause major splits in denominations. The best thing we could do to show Jesus to the world, in my opinion, is unify under the one belief that we can only be saved by his sacrifice. After all, that is what all Christianity is rooted in and what the entire gospel comes down to.

  5. Lillian Meng says:

    Learning more about the “seeker-sensitive” movement was very interesting. Very informative and interesting article Mr. Williams!

  6. Samuel Roesler says:

    After reading this article, it made me feel less alone on the “seeker sensitive” culture our churches have become, especially in our town of Champaign, Urbana. I feel like there is nothing wrong with trying to get people who know nothing about Christ to learn more about his word, but when it causes you stray away from the whole message you are trying to give them, there’s no point. I see a lot of this issue in youth groups and other groups, for example, the group ” YoungLife.” I have problem with their group, but the thing I disagree with is the fact they advertise to people as you go on cool trips, lots of food and drinks, and friends. Today churches and youth groups are making it a competition to get people to come to their church, this isn’t right at all. You shouldn’t go to a church or youth group, because they play “better” games and have “more cool” kids their. The focus and point of church and youth group is gone, plus most of them aren’t even doing things God related! I hope this will eventually go away and take church more serious, it’s not all about entertaining people, we are here to worship God and grow in our faith.

Leave a Reply