Boutique Christianity

There is something very interesting happening in the evangelical pulpit these days. We’re increasingly hearing a new packaging of the Gospel that sounds very similar regardless of where you hear the message preached. I am talking about the packaging of the Gospel in those formats that emphasize social justice. Before anyone suggests that I am opposed to the essence of Jesus’ message, allow me to share a few thoughts about my perceptions.

About 20 years ago (give or take) Tony Campolo launched the evangelical church into a period of self-analysis and serious scrutiny. He wasn’t the first obviously, but his charismatic presence, witticisms, and inimitable style gave him center-stage in the evangelical world. He challenged the evangelicals at several levels.

First, he challenged the church to change the world. He focused his message on re-traditioning and re-purposing the traditional message so that the growing emphasis on moving away from “privatized piety” could find a way to reinterpret Christian holiness as compassion and social justice.

Second, his message often seemed to encourage a sense of embarrassment among evangelicals who were experiencing the “lift” that so often accompanies spiritual transformation. This message induced a sense of shame among those evangelicals that had access to abundant resources by reminding them that so many of the rest of the world’s population had so little.

Simultaneously, a sociological shift was occurring that would produce what some people enjoy calling “post-modernity.” The children of the boomer generation, many of whom were satiated with the excess of success generated by their parents’ upward mobility, sought new ways of finding authenticity through altruism. While the significance and substance of the converging factors cannot be adequately covered in one blog, I believe there is something here that deserves our consideration.

For about the last 20 years, we have heard a new presentation of the Gospel that builds on the descriptions offered above. Students have been discouraged from seeking entrance into those professions or jobs where financial security, material acquisition, and upward mobility might be the result. Instead, there has been an interesting migration of students into “callings” that enable them to go out into the world to “make a difference.” The evangelical church has not only celebrated this, it has encouraged this trajectory.

The result is an exploding motif within the evangelical church wherein the faithful are discouraged from thinking about acquisition, material wealth, and personal success. The faithful have been reminded that the message of Jesus was radical; that it discouraged entrepreneurial behaviors, and had more in common with socialism than capitalism, free enterprise, and democracy.

As a result, there are people who attend evangelical churches listening for a word from the Lord that would affirm discipleship, the values of industry, thrift, and generosity which were derivatives of the lift of the Gospel. Instead of hearing such words, they hear messages about “radical obedience” which is seldom defined, but rather, cast in generalities peppered with liberation themes and jargon.

Admittedly, I am left with more questions than answers. One cannot deny that the early holiness movement interpreted Jesus’ call to radical discipleship as a response to the message of the cross. Such response was preferentially seen to be best expressed an in amphibious life-style; in but not of the world. The unfortunate consequence was a preoccupation with a quantification of holiness that missed the heart of the message, leaving good people who “thought” their way out of fanaticism, with few options. That there was a “brain drain” in the holiness movements is inarguable.

Once again, the evangelical church, and the holiness churches (I’m not sure there is such a thing as “the holiness movement”) are facing an artificial and contrived segmentation of the message of Jesus. Once again, lines are being drawn with the intent to provide a means of quantification of Christian holiness. This time, it’s not “worldliness” but the contrasting of people who believe in the potential for lift, success, and significance that allows generated wealth to be the engine of vision and mission, against those who live in monastic communities, emphasize their resistance to materialism, and manifest selfless altruism.

One preacher I heard extolled the action of Elisha, who upon meeting Elijah, killed all 24 of the oxen with which he was plowing a field, and burned the wooden yokes in order to sacrifice the animals and cook the meat. This action was celebrated as a model for all who would take the Gospel seriously, recognizing, that one must burn all connections with their present lifestyle in order to “go forward” with God. I believe the metaphor of 12 yoke of oxen must be understood like the number 12 in other biblical contexts, e.g. the number of completeness. Whether Elisha was plowing with 2 or 24 oxen simply means that he is being used by the scripture writer to express the idea that he was receiving a unique call in the midst of a satisfying existence, surrounded with a surplus from which his needs were met. And, while I don’t dispute the reality that one may receive such a call, no mention is ever made of the impact of Elisha’s decision. For example, what impact did it have on those who depended on what Elisha was doing?

My point is simply this: preaching the Gospel is always a humbling experience. Somewhere, there has to be a middle way, the ” via media.” Some people are called to kill their oxen and burn their resources. Others are called to manage their resources, invest their talents, and earn the income that can finance the mission of the church so that others who have burnt their bridges may go in God’s name.

Boutique Christianity is always trendy, sounds intriguing, and grabs attention. The question is: Will it stand the test of time?

So, what’s your opinion?