Who Defines?

How would you respond if you were to tell someone that you wanted to spend $200 on a computer and someone that owned an iPod said that you could purchase their iPod? When you tried to say that you did not want an iPod, they responded that you were not being completely above board with your offer because they had what you said you wanted to purchase–an iPod is a computer–but you would not purchase it from them. Would you feel that you should allow your $200 to go to the person for an iPod? Would you hold the $200 or would you insist that you define for yourself what your $200 goes to purchase?

That is what appears to be going on, to a certain extent, in a recent research project of Lifeway Research. Allow me to say that I am very impressed with Lifeway Research and their work. I do not always agree with some of their conclusions, but I am very impressed with their work. I have never had the opportunity to meet Dr. Brad Waggoner who is the head of LifeWay Research, but I understand he is a great person as well as a profound statistician. Dr. Ed Stetzer is a missiologist and researcher that is a noted expert in the field of research. I have had the privilege of meeting Dr. Stetzer and you can see our interview here. He has a contagious personality and everyone who meets him comes away being blessed to have been in dialog with him.

With all of the above accolades it is hard for me to call attention to something that I believe is amiss in their recent research. Dr. Tony Carteledge points to something that is taking place but he does not, I believe, go far enough. It could be the perceived disappointment for the lack of clear words being expressed, or it could go much deeper for him as he has come through some of the theological battles of the past. Either way Dr. Carteledge raises a good point. Who, or what group, is defining the words being used?

According to Barna Research, there has been issued a clear definition of a difference in the terms being used. Barna researched and defined an Evangelical as one that meets the criteria of a born-again plus seven more conditions. A person that is born-again only meets two condtions. People were asked the question; “have you ever made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in your life today?” If the person answered that question in the positive they were then asked to choose one of seven statements that described them One statement was; “when I die, I will go to Heaven because I have confessed my sins and have accepted Jesus Christ as my savior.” The person that answered yes to the first question and chose the statement mentioned above was considered born-again.

Whether one agrees with the above crtieria or not is not the issue of this post. What I am trying to point out is that Barna Research has set the parameters for which we can clearly say this person is born-again or this person is an evangelical. This brings me to my concern with Lifeway Research’s latest research concerning the way unchurched people view the church. Lifeway Research did a great job presenting a definition of unchurched–one who has not attended church in the past six months. Do I believe that the church needs to know what the unchurched are thinking? You bet I do! Do I believe that we must concern ourselves to the point that we enter dialog in order to find out what we may do in order to allow the Cross to be the only stumbling block? Again, you bet I do! Do I believe that we allow unchurched people to define what is or is not a Christian? No, No, No!!! Do I believe that we should allow the unchurched to add to a false belief that Jesus is separated from the church? Again, No, No, No!!!

In the Lifeway Research article, we are encouraged to go to USA Today and read the article they have done in order to see their comments. The author of the Lifeway Research article, referencing USA Today, says; “their focus was on the attitudes of the unchurched toward the church. That attitude is, admittedly, bad. But be sure to read the rest of the story here, which tells the good news about the openness of the unchurched to a personal witness.” Here in lies my concern.

The ‘unchurched’ were asked the question; “The God of the Bible is no different from the gods or spiritual beings depicted by world religions such as Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.” Here is the finding of this question; “Among unchurched adults, 58% of younger adults (ages 18-29) agree (strongly or somewhat) compared to 67% of older adults (30 years and older).” That tells us that the unchurched do not know what it means to be a Christian. Please note something here that has not been discussed. The younger unchurced group appear to be less likely to accept ecumenical philosophy, while the older unchurched appear to be more likely to accept it.

Another question asked that adds to my concern focuses on the unchurched person’s definition of Christianity. The question was; “I think Christianity today is more about organized religion than about loving God and loving people” Seventy-nine percent of unchurched said they either somewhat agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. But now Lifeway Research seems to desire that we accept these views as correct instead of making certain that we more clearly define that Christianity is not about ‘organized religion’. However when asked to rate this statement; “I have at least one close friend who considers himself or herself a Christian.” We saw seventy-nine percent of unchurched people either somewhat agree or strongly agree. Here is my concern. If the unchurched say that they believe Christianity has to do with organized religion then they are only saying that they have a close friend that attends church.

One other area of concern has to do with the appearance of separating Jesus from the church. “I believe I can have a good relationship with God without being involved in a church.” A full eighty-six percent either somewhat, or strongly agreed with this statement. There is an interesting note attached to this statement. “Unchurched adults who attended church weekly during their childhood are equally likely to agree (strongly or somewhat) compared to unchurched adults who attended church less often as a child.” Notice there is virtually no difference in this thinking between children that attended church as a child versus those that didn’t. Somewhere, somehow, the ball was dropped about Jesus and his bride. This is an ecclesiological issue. Part of what I was taught when I was a child was that when we met in that little white clapboard church we were part of the Bride of Christ meeting. While we were meeting on the local level we were part of the gathered church that Christ would gather together on that “great gettin-up morning”.

For What it is Worth–My Opinion

First, the research has revealed some needs that we as church leaders must take to heart. I am grateful to Lifeway Research for their work and presentation of this data.

Second, Dr. Carteledge points out something that was not his intention, I believe. In order to clearly communicate, parameters of definition must be made clear. It seems that we are left, from this research, without a clear definition of what an unchurched person considers a Christian. If the only statement we have to go by is “Believing in Jesus makes a positive difference in a person’s life,” then we cannot fully understand that as one who is a Christian. Believing in Jesus sounds great, but what does it mean to believe? It seems that James took issue with a mere knowledge that Jesus can change someone’s life when he stated in James 2:19 “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe–and tremble.” James clearly defined what it means to believe, something this research tool doesn’t seem to be so ready to do. I know it is not the purpose of this research, but before we say Christians need to change how we approach unchurched, we need to know who the unchurched believe are and are not Christians.

Third, it seems that Lifeway Research has, unintentionally, weakened a solid ecclesiological standard for Southern Baptist with their survey statement that separates Jesus from the church. This statement was presented in this way in order to attain a specific response, which is understandable. I just question if there were another way to ask the question in order to get a clearer understanding of the reason people believe they can believe in Jesus without attending church. Would “weekly organized religious meetings” not been a better term?

Can we use these results? Certainly! We are not going to “throw out the baby in the bath water.” This research is a valuable tool for us. We certainly will benefit from this research and feel comfortable using it in an approach to reach the unchurched. Much thanks goes to Lifeway Research for their hard work.