Typically, the marketplace is where buying and selling
takes place, and where money is exchanged for goods and services. To be
successful in the marketplace requires the skill to get people to buy your
product. You have to know how to lure customers your way. McDonalds has definitely
mastered the marketplace, something I found out after we adopted our daughter. Faith
is not able to read or write yet, since she is only two-years-old, but she has learned
to recognize the golden arches. This fact is made clear every time we go
through the drive through. The minute that we order the food, my daughter moans
at the top of her lungs begging for French fries. They have reeled her in and
created, what might be a lifelong customer at the ripe old age of two.
While there is marketplace in our everyday world, there is also a religious marketplace where goods and services are rendered and exchanged, and enticement is how you get people to come to church. Many people, however, perceive that the religious marketplace is a recent phenomenon, but the record of history doesn’t seem to want to cooperate. In this blog I will begin by analyzing American Christianity dating back from antiquity by utilizing an economic framework to further our understanding. The framework that I will use was developed by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark who reject the old way of analyzing religion stemming from the work of Peter Berger and others and, in its stead, advocates an economic model, one that understands religion in a market oriented framework.
The differing religious economies, then fall under the following categories: regulated, or deregulated, just like economies fall under one of the aforementioned headings in any country. In the American framework, as they shed the baggage of the state church in the early part of the eighteenth century, deregulation has reigned supreme. You see, regulation stifles religious commitment, whereas deregulation causes it to prosper. Finke and Stark opine, ‘The most significant feature of the religious economy is the degree to which it is deregulated and therefore market-driven as opposed to being regulated by the state in favor of monopoly.”[1] Thus, “In keeping with supply and demand principles, to a degree that a religious economy is unregulated, pluralism will thrive.”[2] This is why there are so many different kinds of churches and religions in America.
The
religious marketplace idea explains, for the most part, how some churches are
growing and why some churches are not. The reason why the church down the road
from you might be growing might be because that church has learned how to be
successful in the religious marketplace. They have successfully carved a
portion of the market share.
A quick
word, I believe, is in order at this point. I must point out that not every
successful church that has seen great growth is because they have catered to
the whims of the marketplace. Many churches have grown large, healthy churches
while avoiding the aforementioned temptation. For example, Bethlehem Baptist
Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota where John Piper pastors is a great
example. Over the years, the church has enjoyed significant growth, while
remaining faithful to God’s Word and remaining true to historic
Protestantism.
To return
to the point at hand, in understanding how the Church is affected by a deregulated
economy one needs to use supply and demand principles. Recalling your high
school or college econ class you probably remember the terms supply and demand which
are essential ingredients in a market economy. When these terms are applied to
religion, they refer to religion as being the supplier and people are the ones
who set the demand. Consequently, consumer preference becomes the driving
force. Therefore, for churches to be successful, it is reasoned, they must
learn to appeal to the demand of the consumer. This calls for churches to
“carve out a niche in the spiritual marketplace and distinguish their
ministries by offering an array of spiritual goods and services that match the
taste and desires of religious consumers.”[3]
The Puritans
As the
thinking goes, when the Church doesn’t, at least to some degree, appeal to the
felt needs and demand of the people they will fail to be numerically
successful. This idea can be seen in the Puritans of early America. Many
people, particularly Christians, wax nostalgic when it comes to their perceived
impact. The evidence, however, points to a modest impact at best. This is
reflected by the fact that by the time of the Revolution, only “about 17% of
Americans were churched.”[4] Christian
traditions like Puritanism, who was rich in tradition, refused to capitulate to
the possibilities of the religious marketplace. They were determined to stay
true, as it were, to their faith.
The
Puritans overall ineffectiveness is also reflected in their relatively modest
impact on the society around them. In New England “non-Puritan behavior
abounded. From 1761 through 1800 a third (33.7%) of all first births in New England
occurred after nine months of marriage despite harsh laws against fornication.”[5] The
picture that is often conveyed is usually points to the opposite result. Most
people see the Puritans as regulating the behavior of most of society. Pictures of Hester Prynne, the woman who conceives
out of wedlock, and is the main character in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Scarlet Letter remains fixed in our
memory. However, “single women … were more likely to be sexually active than to
belong to a church.”[6]
However, given these facts, this “does not necessarily mean that most were
irreligious (although some clearly were), but it does mean that their faith
lacked public expression and organized influence.”[7] What
this evidence shows is that most people during this period were not being
reached.
Evangelical
Emergence
During the
emergence of Evangelicalism starting in the 1730’s began a shift in how people
were drawn to the faith. With the dwindling influence of Puritanism and
Anglicanism a religious marketplace began to emerge in a greater way given the
fact of increasing deregulation. Indeed, the state church idea was on its way
out due to the religious diversity that existed in the colonies and was being
replaced by this new Evangelicalism. This new movement of Christianity would
retain many of the Puritan ideas such as seeking after revival, an
authoritative interpretation of Scripture, and the destiny of America being a
Christian nation. They added to these faith commitments other influences such as
pietism, with its emphasis on heart over head as well as high church
Anglicanism with its organization focus on small groups.
The famed
Jonathon Edwards would be the forerunner of the First Great Awakening,
beginning in the fall of 1734. As a result of his ministry the fire of revival
would fall bringing many to the faith. However, it would be during the spring
of the following year that the “great itinerant” George Whitefield would arrive
on the scene fresh from the Evangelical Awakening in Great Britain. This bright
young Oxford graduate wasn’t the towering intellectual that Edwards was, but
what he lacked in intellectual skills and he more made up for in oratory
skills. He is what Harry S. Stout calls the Divine
Dramatist[8]. The
theme of our chapter is the religious marketplace, but “before religion could
become a marketplace phenomenon, however, it required an entrepreneur” and
Whitefield would serve that role. He was equipped with the intangibles such as
the ability to mesmerize an audience with his incredible capacity to connect
with a crowd, a keen knack for promotion, and a leadership ability that was
second to none. These skills enabled him to draw huge crowds and illicit media
coverage that would cause him to be a household name making him a perfect fit for
the American religious marketplace.
I must
point out though our evaluation of Whitefield should not be construed as an
overall negative estimate of his ministry. He was, after all, a true man of God
who did great things for the furtherance of God’s Kingdom. Some of his
strengths, however, will later become some of the weaknesses of the Evangelical
church. Furthermore, his ministry took place during a period in American
history where change was taking place rapidly. Old plausibility structures that
had once shaped society’s thinking were now being replaced by new ones. Thus
what Whitefield did was confront “a society in crisis. New social, political,
and economic forces were rapidly reshaping religious institutions, and, in the
process, redefined the rules by which ‘society’ existed and held together.”[9] Since
a new day was dawning, a new ministry paradigm was emerging. It would be one
that was geared towards effective ministry in this newly formed religious
marketplace.
Meeting the
Demands of the Marketplace
To meet the
demands of the marketplace, Whitefield used four avenues in which to do it,
namely the power of his personality, the enticement of entertainment, the lure
of a passion-based approach, and the draw of a consumer oriented strategy,
strategies still used today. Whitfield was in the same dilemma that every
pastor and every church in America finds themselves in today, which is how does
someone effectively reach people in a religious marketplace oriented society? In
the American system, people must be persuaded to attend church given the fact
that there is no governmental system that commands a certain religious
adherence, making enticement an integral part of the evangelistic and
recruitment process.
The two
winners in this newly formed religious marketplace, the Methodists and
Baptists, had their numbers swell between the years of 1776-1850 while the
losers, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Episcopalians saw decline.[10] The difference between the two groups is
based on their effectiveness in the religious marketplace. The
Congregationalists, Episcopalians and Presbyterians were steeped in tradition,
maintained an educated clergy, and were supported by the state through tax
dollars. This meant they were out of touch with the common man and saw no need
to reach new people. These groups were used to the religious monopoly of the
state church and never had to compete for congregants, representing the
Motherland, mingling with the aristocracy, bringing them privilege and power.
It was during
this period where the “mainline churches” began to decline in numbers. Given
there privilege and education they did not relate to a society where 98% of the
population did not have a high school education. Most people saw them as elites
who were out of touch with the needs of the people. With such a disposition, it
would be difficult to reach people in the religious marketplace. Besides, these
denominations were offering a secularized faith, which didn’t resonate with the
common folk. In contrast [to the Baptists and Methodists] … the colonial
mainline [offered] a message that was literate and intellectual, which
increasingly said little about salvation, hellfire, or the principal themes of
the Baptist and Methodist sermons.”[11]
The story
of the Baptist and Methodists has a different ending. Their numbers swelled
during those same years. For example, church rates as a whole went from 17% in
1776 to 34% in 1850. These numbers were galvanized not by the Congregationalists,
Episcopalians, or Presbyterians, but the Baptists and Methodists. In 1776 55%
belonged to the three aforementioned mainline churches, dropping significantly
in 1850 to 19.1% of the total religious adherents. The Baptists and Methodists,
on the other hand, went from 19.4% of the total amount of religious adherents
to 57.7%, a whopping 28.3% increase.[12]
As a matter of fact, the Methodists reached a level at one time where there
were more Methodist churches in America than post offices. With this kind of growth,
the logical question would be how did this type of growth happen?
They did
nothing more than continue the tradition of George Whitefield, which was to
take advantage of the religious marketplace. When I say this, I don’t mean to
demean them. After all, they were the ones, rather than the mainline churches, which
were proclaiming the Gospel message and leading people to Christ. Rather, there
were certain things they did that resonated with the people and the Baptist and
Methodists intuitively knew what those things were. What took place, according to
Phillip Luke Sinitiere, was “Baptist and Methodist upstarts benefited from this new unregulated
economy and drew market share from mainliners who were less in touch with the
needs and tastes of the masses….”[13] Where Methodists used circuit riders to do
this, Baptists used farmer preachers to proclaim their message and lead their
perspective denominations forward. These were largely uneducated preachers who
were willing to preach for next to nothing, but were able to communicate with
the people on their level and in the vernacular they were used to. As a result
of unregulated economy these upstarts were successful because such a
circumstance allowed “these innovators to compete in the marketplace of ideas
and draw market share from suppliers who [failed] to change with the times.”[14] They
were able to do what their “mainline” counterparts were not able to do, which
was to meet the felt needs of the people.
Throughout
the history of Evangelicalism in America, “Evangelical innovators have enjoyed
cherished places in the religious economy by adjusting to each generation.”[15] Names
such as D. L. Moody and Billy Graham come to mind who the successful innovators
of their time were. For instance, D. L. Moody met the needs of his generation
and carved out a market niche by speaking in the common, ordinary language of
the people. He didn’t resort to the flamboyant methods of a Charles Finney who
preached decades before him. According to Geroge Marsden, “his message was
simple. It involved the ‘Three R’s’: Ruin by Sin, Redemption by Christ, and Regeneration
by the Holy Ghost. Saving Souls was the prominent goal.”[16] He,
together with his longtime friend Ira Sankley was able to wow audiences with
their gifts of speaking and singing respectively. They were successful in
designing worship services that attracted new people.[17]
Billy Graham, similarly, was able to accomplish the same results in a similar
manner.
Church Growth
Movement
Beginning
in the 1950’s the church growth movement was born continuing the era of the
religious marketplace, except now it was based on scientific research. The
movement’s founder, Donald McGavran of Fuller Theological Seminary, sought to
identity the causes of church growth as well as discovering the barriers that
prevent churches from growing. This movement eventually morphed into a movement
that advocated such things as marketing and management techniques to facilitate
church growth, which resulted in leading the Church to embrace secularization. J B Watson Jr, Walter H Scalen Jr. offers insight into this movement while also drawing insight
from Allen Wolfe. They state,
Adherents of the church growth
movement seem to openly embrace this unique form of secularization, which is
welcomed by church leaders as a formula for both short- and long-term growth.
In The Transformation of American Religion: How We Actually Live Our Faith
(2003), Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American
Public Life at Boston College, suggests that the modern church's intoxication
with corporate business culture, self-improvement perspectives, and pop culture
is part of a larger trend, namely, secularization.
Watson and Scalen go on to say that “the
movement thus represents a unique form of secularization as evangelical leaders
openly incorporate a business model in a local church context.”[18] What
the church growth movement did for pastors who were struggling for members was
give them a vision for success provided they applied certain growth principles.
There were many churches who were simply traditionalist utilizing the negative
sense of the word. You may remember grandma’s church where there was no
vitality, and where tradition was valued even more than God’s Word. Depending
on the denomination, that traditionalism manifested itself in different forms.
If you attended a Reformed church, Calvin was probably valued more than Christ.
If her church was a Pentecostal church, possibly manifestations of the Spirit
were acted out without the Spirit’s unction, attempting to recreate some sort
of ecstatic experience that is supposed to be a sign of the Spirit’s moving.
Perhaps grandma’s church was a holiness movement where sanctification was the
result of hard work. My point here is that every denomination has their version
of traditionalism. But there is one thing that traditionalist churches all have
in common; no one is getting saved, rarely is anyone being disciplined and
worst of all, God is probably not being glorified. The Saturday night live
character - the Church Lady - would probably attend this church.
The
Marketing Oriented Church
So
it goes without saying that the traditionalist church is probably not the
church you would want to emulate. After all, who wants to attend a church that
is dying a slow death? There have been many responses to the traditionalist
dilemma, and I would like to summarize three of them. The first is the
marketing oriented church, which represents the American religious market place
on steroids. This model was popularized by Bill Hybels, pastor of Willow Creek
Community Church. He
is a man that has a passion for the lost, and is probably the most influential
pastor outside maybe Rick Warren in the nation. His church, which has mastered
the religious marketplace, was a product of the high school ministry of
South Park Church, located in Park Ridge, Illinois. The ministry combined bible
teaching, drama, and contemporary music going from a few teenagers to about a
thousand per night. Hybels, who was one of the youth leaders at the time,
decided to start a new church with a few of his friends. They held their first
service in a movie theater on October 12, 1975. In just two years attendance
ballooned to about two thousand people. Today the church has a weekly
attendance of over fifteen thousand worshipers every weekend, and has become a
model for many Evangelical churches in America.
His
key to success was to develop a marketing/corporate business model to do
church. Hybels is thoroughly orthodox in his faith holding to essential
teachings such as the Virgin Birth, the inerrancy of Scripture, the Second
Coming of Christ, and the substitutionary atonement, all of which would make any
evangelical proud and many liberal Protestants frown. So the problem is not his
overall theology on
the nature of the Bible, or his soteriology or Christology, etc. His beliefs are all evangelical in nature and
congruent with historic Protestant understanding of these doctrines. What is
problematic is his ecclesiology, or the doctrine that pertains to the nature
and function of the church. Regarding this theological truth he takes the low
road of liberal Protestantism.
Protestant
liberalism was heavily influenced by a movement of modernists who fueled a
debate in the early part of the 20th century that raged called the
fundamentalist/modernist controversy. One of the controversy’s central issues
was whether church should, in the name of relevance, adopt the Enlightenment oriented
way of thinking where reason trumps over revelation. It what thought by
modernists that, in lieu of scientific discoveries that were made which seemed
to disprove parts of the Bible, one had to embrace a more enlightened
naturalistic understanding of Christianity and her doctrines. Modernists
thought that they were powerless to withstand the arguments mounted against a
more literal interpretation of the Bible, and opted for a more rationalistic oriented
approach. This made Scripture subject to human understanding, resulting in
human reason trumping revelation when it came to how one understands key
doctrines.
Similarly, Hybels builds his understanding of
how to do church by looking primarily to the business world (reason), not first
to God’s revealed Word, to shape his thinking on this subject. This is
unfortunate. The over emphasis on business oriented approaches and techniques
reveal the true nature regarding how the church should operate. This is evident
during leadership conferences where he invites top leaders in the business
world, some of which are not believers, to inform pastors on how to do church. Rarely
is God’s word ever consulted and expounded upon for its truths. Given the
influence that Willow Creek has had on tens of thousands of pastors, this thinking
represents how many in the evangelical world view how they are to do church. After
all, we live in a world that is permeated with corporate business practices, so
the church needs to follow suit. Many evangelicals have bought in to this
misconception, David Wells being one of them. He points out that, in many ways,
evangelicals have traded sola Scriptura
for sola cultura, meaning that
culture and not the Scriptures defines how church should be done.
What
product has such an understanding of how to do church produced? The
Hybels/seeker sensitive model rests on a few false assumptions, the first of
which is that unbelievers seek after God. The idea runs contrary to Scripture.
The Apostle Paul declares, “None is righteous, no, not one; 11no one
understands; no one seeks for God. 12All have turned aside; together
they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:10-12). What
the seeker is looking for is happiness, worth, and fear, which are all results
of life without God. What the seeker needs is truth, coming from Christians who
are full of grace, love and compassion. The only ones that seek after God are
the ones God regenerates first.
The
second false assumption is we should design the worship service to reach the
seeker, an idea not rooted in Scripture. God wants His church to tailor the
services to instruct the believer. Yet, the seeker sensitive model has sought
to design their worship service to reach the seeker instead; the idea is to
market the gospel to unbelievers, and this becomes the main thrust of the
worship service. Thus, the music has to be entertaining, the lighting just
right, and the sermon must be positive, uplifting, sprinkled with the
occasional dose of humor. However, the worship service is supposed to be
designed around the people of God. Moreover, a proper view of how church is to
be done focuses on what pleases God, and not man. Everything we do needs to
center on glorifying God.
Often
times the quest to be seeker sensitive stems from the conviction that the
Church should to engage the culture, which is a noble quest. This requires a
real understanding of the culture. Yet, the quest for cultural understanding is
often times superficial, and not a serious one. When seeker churches want to
learn about culture, they primarily want to find out “the trends and fashions that
ruffle the surface of contemporary life.”[19]
In other words, what they hope to learn about culture is what will help them
better market the Christian message more efficiently. Too often, the worship
service is geared towards entertaining the congregation resulting in a more man
centered focus. I will never forget what a friend said, who was a pastor’s wife
and worship leader at her church, that worship is to be a production. The often
quoted phrase by those within this movement is that churches should change the
method but not the message, which is true. But when does changing the method
begin to change the message? My aforementioned friend the pastor’s wife serves
as an example.
[1] Quote
obtained from International Journal of Law in Context, 2,1 pp. 49–65 (2006)
Cambridge University Press
[2] Rodger
Finke; Stark, Rodney. The Churching of
America 1776-1990. (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1992) 18
[3] Kindle
Book
[4] Fisk and
Stark, 15
[5] Ibid. 22
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
22-23
[8] Harry S.
Stout. The Divine Dramatist: George
Whitefield and the Rise of Modern Evangelicalism. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing,
1991)
[9] Harry S.
Stout. xvi
[10] Finke
and Stark 72
[11] Roger
Finke and Rodney Stark. Journal of the
Scientific Study of Religion How the Upstart Sects Won America: 1776-1850 1989,
28 (1) 27-44
[12] Ibid.
[13] Holy
Mavericks: Evangelical Innovators and the
Spiritual Marketplace. New York: NYU Press short, 2009 Kindle Book
[14] Kindle
Book
[15] Ibid.
[16] George
Marsden. Understanding Evangelicalism and
Fundamentalism. (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1991)
21.
[17] Ibid.
Kindle
[18] J B Watson Jr, Walter H Scalen Jr. International Social Science Review.
Salisbury: 2008.
Vol. 83, Iss. 3/4; pg.
[19] David
Wells. The Courage to Be Protestant:
Truth-lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World [Kindle
Edition]
