Skye:
I agree completely with your assessment. This whole thing is tantamount to the losing team blaming the referees for their poor performance. In an era when a vocal minority of Americans wants to blame government for all that ails us, it is no surprise that this argument has gained some traction despite being little more than an adult temper tantrum.

If we are to halt our decline, we need to quit blaming external forces like government and begin recapture the vibrancy and energy that once defined us as a people. No more temper tantrums please!

-Scott Palmer

One may also argue that there is no decline in the Church at all just a decline in number of attenders. Perhaps our "decline" is a good thing, separating wheat and tares a tad early!

I suspect that Mohler isn't in full agreement with the premise, since he has also conceded on other occasions that the church is much to blame for it's own decline.

I agree that a church that attempts to imitate the culture is destined to failure, but I don't think we should automatically discount things going on in the culture, either. When the state begins to supplant the church, it certainly has an effect.

Now, I think we have responsibility here, too. The cult of politics lately has reached a fever pitch. Liberals, conservatives, democrats, republicans, labor, tories, etc are increasingly putting their faith and praise in things of this world, rather than the Creator.

I don't blame government.

I blame the church for watering down Christianity and marrying it to the culture.

The church should be counter-cultural and not work to look like the culture.

We need to get real and take our heads out of our...er...the sand.

Skye,

The question is not, "who is to blame, the church or the government for the decline of religious believers?" but "is there a statistical significance between the size of government and religious observance?" If so, as Wilcox argues, then church leaders need to be prepared to interact with this "fact of life" in reaching both Christians and non-Christians. Blaming government and/or the church is not the way to move forward. If every time we respond to research showing decline in religious observance with blaming and finger pointing then we are still trying to remove a speck while having a plank in our own.

Jeff hit the nail on the head. Who needs the missional (or emergent or purpose driven, etc.) church when "missional" has nothing to do with the Gospel?

The people who are leaving can get that which they seek anywhere.

Weat and Tares.

Dave,

I like your point, and I agree—blaming isn’t an answer no matter who the finger is pointing at. The problem I have with Wilcox and Mohler’s point of view is that some use this line of reasoning to mobilize political conservatives within the church for a political crusade. Whether on the left or right, there is a danger in believing political activism is the answer to the challenges facing the church today. I don’t believe politics is the reason the church is declining, and therefore I don’t believe politics is the solution.

Skye

That the church is not reaching the next generation with the gospel is an alarming issue. We are given the commission by Jesus to tell the whole world, each generation the truth of God's act of redemptive love toward them. Language, idiom, style, and the changing cultures are the challenges the church faces in fulfilling that commission. I hope that we speak the right language to reach this generation.

People have been saying for a long time that church attendance increases during hard times, and declines once everything is good again. So it makes sense that if the government removes the bad times from peoples' lives, it will have an effect on the numbers who feel the need for a Savior.

That said, the church long ago forfeited it's place as provider for the community

I realized my thought was still incomplete.

What I mean to say is that whether the trends in government and the church have any correlation, how profitable is it to complain about it? Chances are, the correlation is fractured at best, and even if it is there, so what?

Isn't the argument put forth by Wilcox and Mohler a classic case of assuming -- but in no way proving -- a connection between two simultaneous trends? I found their argument to be almost absurd, given the apparent absence of any research to establish an actual cause-and-effect relationship between the two trends.

Yep, the question is whether there is any causal relationship between the two and if so, which causes which? It's kind of like the relationship between who wins the superbowl and whether stocks go up or down that year. There is a remarkable correlation, but it is almost assuredly coincidental and not causal.

Skye,

Yes! The line of reasoning that says:

1. If religious observance declines when government gets larger and

2. Republicans are for smaller government then

3. We should vote Republican to get people back to church

is a ludicrous way to approach ministry to people in our country. No doubt that some evangelicals will use this line of reasoning. And if I have heard you correctly you would say, "even if the size of government contributes to the decline of religious observance, the solution to this problem is not political." Is that right?

But, respectfully, I don't believe this is Mohler's view. He seems to highlight this article as another challenge the church must face, not to mobilize the church to Republican interests. (Of course, he has done this elsewhere -- remember the nuclear option for judges? -- but I don't think he does it here). Larger government is going to pose a "big" challenge to evangelical churches largely for the reasons specified in Wilcox's article.

Instead of saying, "how has the church let this happen?" (which is full of all kinds of faulty assumptions) the better question is, "why does larger government create a higher degree of secularism?" and "how does the church respond?"

For my two cents I find Shelby Steele's thesis provactive and insightful :: that modern liberalism is giving people in America an opportunity for redemption from past sins and bigotries. It is a gospel substitute. Of course this gives us lots of great opportunities to join the conversation since we all know something about true redemption.

Here is the link to Steele's article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123716282469235861.html

I am a pastor studying secularisation and faith at a government owned University in Australia.
Multiculturalism has resulted in a Pluralism that is lazy. Lazy pluralism reverts to relativism. This relativism piggy backs on governmental preferences for rationalism in the education system producing a scientism that must be relativisitic.
The default switch in this culture has become atheistic relativism as a consequence of lazy pluralism.
This atheistic relativism is "value-free", other than assuming the value of "order" as something that flows from a commitment to atheistic evolution (Kosmin: Secularism 21st Century).
Sadly this form of relativism also becomes self assured (arrogant) against other belief systems. It also approves of the manipulative use of power as a consequence of the ideology that "knowledge is power".
There is little tolerance in such a system for other beliefs or empathy for other people.
Churches have a choice.
Pastors have a choice.
They can accommodate to the prevailing relativism of the culture; they hope to win people to Christ by adopting an evolutionary position to demonstrate their "scientism".
They may hope without question support the educational objectives of the culture (2 Tim 3:1-6).
They may offer an experience divorced from fundamentalist assertions about truth claims. (Utilisation of a form of music etc may be a subtle attempt to accommodate to the culture).

Or,
Churches can reassert those fundamental beliefs that God has inbuilt into humanity.
(Romans 1:18-25).
A sense of beauty is one of those basic presuppositions that God has placeed into humanity.
A sense of conscience (Romans 2:1-17) is one of those innate factors that God has placed in all humanity. (vis Kant).
There are other innate belief structures that are inbuilt into all humanity by reason of our very existence.
Because these inbuilt belief structures already exist in the individual (and also in the culture, because they preexist the culture, and they are in each component of the culture; humanity and all it conceives)
there is already something within the walls of Mansoul that can respond to the call of God to repent.
Following a Van Tillian apologetic, the Churches need to reassert the truthfulness of God's call that all people everywhere should repent. They need to remind the individuals within the culture and the culture itself of its dependance upon God.
They also need to reassert the truths of revelation (as the Word of God is self attesting to its own truthfulness, that is, there is something within the soul of man that responds to the Word of God as indeed the Word of God 1 Thess 2:13 13 Also, this is why we constantly thank God, because when you received the message about God that you heard from us, you welcomed it not as a human message, but as it truly is, the message of God, which also works effectively in you believers.)
It is the churches and pastors that have a choice.. accommodation to the culture or assertion of the Word of God to the culture.
There is a third choice, retreat from the culture into ghettos of Christian exclusivism with our own countercultural values insulated from the culture.
However the Lord calls us to attest to the gospel. This third choice is sinful.

Comments?:

I find the phenemenon of 'blaming the government' to be interesting.

I'm an American Christian who has been living in the UK for 20 years. You will probably be aware that regular church-goers in the UK are a very small proportion of the population. For all intents and purposes, the UK is a 'secular society'.

Over the last 10 years, there has been an increasing amount of noise in Christian circles to the effect that 'they' are out to get us. 'They' is usually variously defined as: 1) the government; 2) 'the secularists' and - increasingly - 3) The Muslims.

I think that what people are picking up is 'the Zeitgeist', the Spirit of the Times, the way society defines what is normative. Secular attitudes are normative or becoming normative. Christian attitudes are seen as crack-pot. But trying to oppose a collective idea of 'how things should be' is difficult, so we target a group of people that we can actually scapegoat in some way. The 'Boogyman' could be anyone, depending on who you dislike.

Best for the Church, in my opinion, to simply keep looking to the light of Christ. If we keep our eyes on Christ and the Gospel, we will know the way in which we should go. If we keep an eye on 'them wot are trying to hurt us, we will get lot.

"...and start recognizing that we carry responsibility for building our houses out of hay and sticks"

You know who is to the "blame" and it falls directly where it should fall...on the people, the individuals who think that [insert-institution/program-of-choice] will be the magic bullet that turns everyone, and everything around.
Shocks and horrors, but all these people think, "zomgas, but if we're more conservative!" or "holy cheese and crackers, if we were more liberal!" or "if I can just reach one more person for Christ by beating them over the head with my righteous morality" that all will be well.

The unfortunate reality is that we are incredibly arrogant, unbelievably stupid, and incredibly self-deceiving...and you're wondering why things are so messed up?

We're human...it's our excuse and our condemnation, and...it's what makes this world such an amazing, and incredible experience to live in.
Think about it.
6 billion people, all of whom have their own individual idea of how to make things better, how to succeed, how "things should be." All, trying to convince each other of their own grand rightness.

Skye, a little perspective, and I think you'll see that if 6 billion people are like that, then a measly 275 million, the US, is just a small slice of that very large, and very confusing...and most frustrating pie.

So, what we should be doing is moving beyond the three choices we have been presented with to date...
Certainly Confused to the Right, Confused Certitude to the Left, and don't care in the middle.
I would like a fourth option, and so I'm all ears...er, eyes...present one that is sound, logical, and please...spiritually rational.

As I lifelong church attender, I think the fault lies primarily with the church for several reasons, some of which are:
1. In some cases the church has abdicated its role to take care of people to the government (i.e., the poor, the homeless). I don't want to hear "there's a reason they're homeless."
2. Attending church can (a) either salvage us, or (b) put too much pressure on us. If the pressure is too great, we have to escape. The pressure is the message we are getting to give more and work harder. It's a message we just can't hear anymore.
3. Many churches want the congregation to "share their vision" or go elsewhere. There is no church whose vision I can share 100%. It's not necessarily a wrong vision - just not one I share.
4. Sometimes the church is just plain dysfunctional.
5. A lot of people who attend church are there because they desperately need to be loved and are grasping for something they can hold onto - something that will help them make it through the next 24 hours. I don't want to be told I'm selfish for needing that lifeline.
I attend church because I'm commanded to and because I love God and I love other people. Not because it's perfect or even tolerable.

I know a lot of Churches and Temples that run soup kitchens, and food pantries, and homeless shelters, but I don't know of any that provide affordable health insurance or will pay people's medical bills. So I really don't see how the issue of government medical insurance comes in here.

Likewise, not many Churches or Temples will pay for people's educational expenses, Seminary or Rabbinate training notwithstanding. So again, I don't see how more Pell Grants etc. comes in here either.

Why is the younger crowd likelier to be non-affiliated? Well, they're busy, maybe they just would rather spend the Sabbath relaxing or partying. Maybe they look at the religious communities and don't notice their folk living any better or worse lives than the folks that aren't at all religious.

Yes, the wrong boogeyman. And perhaps seeing any one thing as the single cause for the decline of the church is distracting (at best) or destructive (at worst) to our efforts to understand and address the problem.

I do wonder what effect its had on the American public that much of the Church over the past few decades has become primarily a “spiritual goods and services” provider. For those that see the Church this way, would we expect anything different if they searched elsewhere for solutions to things they don’t see as “spiritual” problems?

Also, what about the partnership between the Church and government/social agencies looking to truly help those in need? Is it more important that they come to “us” for help, or that they are simply helped?

There are no simple answers for the decline in church affiliation. Rather, a confluence of spiritual, cultural, and political influences has affected the institutional church. People are busy, and many of them don't want to participate in an endeavor that seems at times to serve only its on ends with a labyrinth of committees and sub-committees and hierarchies that consume time but produce little fruit. My own denomination has lost membership because it uses politically correct social positions to inform the faith rather than the faith to motivate Christian generosity and compassion. When love for Jesus and adherence to the principles He taught take a back seat to anything else, no matter how worthy, the faith loses some of its magnetism. Most importantly, the lack of love among Christians hurts the church. I was disappointed by the sarcasm that some who responded positively to this article used to take swipes at conservatives. Paranoia is paranoia, whether the boogeyman is President Obama, President Bush, or even Rush Limbaugh. Doesn't help our cause, does it?

Why? Who is at fault? Don't know and neither does anyone else. Likely enough to go around. The notion that an ever expanding government doesn't have and an influence on the progress of the gospel is less than realistic. When one institution God created seeks power over the whole of life, the church and family are affected. The government becomes a false god competing with the one true God.
Paul exhorted the brethren to pray for those in authority (government) for tranquility because He desires all to be saved. Don’t recall him talking about health care or education. Don’t recall Jesus calling for the government to provide for all the perceived necessities of life. However, the church does not need to whine about the government but to be about the mission Jesus gave in.
The church needs to be about the mission(al) task of the spreading the good news, expanding the kingdom, and teaching all that Jesus commanded. Obviously the Church hasn’t been up to the mission recently despite all the books with Missional in the title. Let’s be about it.

I haven't read Wilcox's article, but I'm betting that he follows a line of thinking similar to Rodney Stark's in "The Rise of Christianity."
Stark answers the question of how did a ragtag bunch of nobodies go from a backwater religion to the most popular religion in just a few hundred years? His answer is the the church out-loved and out-served the other "good news" institution of that day (the state).
I can buy the argument that if the state out-serves the church that people will fall away from the church. Granted, the state might be serving out of a grasp for power or any other poor motives, but works without faith will still win a lot loyalty.
Seeing a correlation between state provision and popular loyalties doesn't mean the state is out to get the church (at least I don't think so), but it does serve as a great reminder that when the church starts acting more like the state (seeking power, influence, status, etc.) the kingdom retreats.

My suggestions is to look at all of our communication with respect to the next generation. Teenagers and those that are in their 20's and 30's, culturally live very differently from their parents.

Technology has their attention in all aspects of their lives and is moving at the speed of light. Most Churches do not have the resources to keep up with these changes and in turn are missing the opportunity to communicate with the next generation. All the while, the next generation is the future of the Church. This generation is communicating via the internet, email, instant messaging, facebook, etc. They are getting their news, research and ideas online too.

As a result churches are challenged with changing the way they communicate with their younger and needed future members.

There are free services available to address the communication and technology issues for the small, medium and large church.

As an example, services like Christian Archives help churches overcome the challenge of not only communicating with the younger generation but speaking to them in their language.

With the speed that technology changes it is vital for churches to keep pace with the way people can access and use their content and message. Christian Archives appears to assists churches by providing cutting edge technology so that churches don’t have to.

Brian Callahan
Old Westbury, New York

Everyone has their favorite way of using the internet. Many of us search to find what we want, click in to a specific website, read what’s available and click out. That’s not necessarily a bad thing because it’s efficient. We learn to tune out things we don’t need and go straight for what’s essential.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com