It’s easy to find books that critique American evangelicalism. It’s not so easy to find books that do it with the kind of rootedness in history, tradition, and theology that Smith has. He skillfully points out several pathologies that infect much of American evangelicalism:

An unmooring from historical theology and tradition that has resulted in a “new provincialism.”
A triumph of sentimentality over reality.
An inextricable connection to the “Christian-industrial complex” that is more interested in selling merchandise than living out the gospel.
A “body count” philosophy of evangelism that counts numbers of “decisions” and people in a building instead of true conversions to Christ.
A wholly uncritical acceptance of mass media and video and broadcast technology as philosophically neutral.
If there any criticisms to be leveled at Smith’s book, he tends to root many of his arguments in the same few sources, almost all of which come from a Reformed theological tradition. But his argument is nonetheless convincing and I think his diagnosis is correct: unless these pathologies are dealt with, American evangelicalism will die (at least in its current form), which, of course, might be a good thing.

Smith doesn’t stop there, though. He goes on to offer a remedy, and that remedy is rooted in church planting. Instead of monolithic churches growing larger and larger, putting more and more people under one roof, he advocates planting more and more churches (a man after my own heart!). The advantages are many, according to Smith:

It provides more opportunities for ministry
It provides greater accountability
It’s multiplicative (not simply additive)
It demonstrates a dying to self (no monuments to one person’s preaching prowess or leadership greatness)
It’s biblical
I wholeheartedly agree. It was refreshing to read a book that seems to diagnose the problems well and advocate a solution that lines up with the way we are attempting to plant our church community here in Fort Wayne.

EDIT: I have one more criticism of Smith’s book: he lumps “emerging” church into the same lot as Joel Osteen, which betrays a severe lack of understanding about where most of these people are coming from. It is one of the issues that Jim Belcher pointed out in his book Deep Church, namely that “postmodernism” means two different things, depending on who you are listening to. Most “emerging” church folks point to post-modernism as a break from modernism, while others (like Smith) see post-modernism as an extension and strengthening of modernism: hyper-modernism. In this way, many times the two sides talk past one another, when in actuality they agree on a lot.

Chadkmiller
http://chadkmiller.wordpress.com
@chadkmiller

The Book “UnChristian” by David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons has a more accurate diagnosis of the decline of the Evangelical church than anyone else I’ve read or heard.

I agree that there are churches who have weak theology and doctrine. Is that really new? “Liberal” theology has been around since the beginning. There are churches who water it down and sugar coat the message to make it more appealing to the masses, but not all. And I would be careful about lumping Bill Hybels, Joel Osteen, and others into that category.

While I don’t think that I would feel at home in a Mega Church like Willow Creek or Saddle Back. I’m not going to judge what God has called them to do or whether they have or have not made an impact for the kingdom of God. I think making such a judgment is ridiculous. And I’m sure there are plenty of people at these churches that can testify about the great things that God is doing in their lives.

I do have a problem with the Christian Industrial Machine. My biggest problem is that it has created this Christian Sub-culture that hides in a bunker. I don’t have a problem with people selling albums or books. I don’t have a problem with Warren Cole Smith selling books. Whether He likes it or not he is a part of the same Industrial Machine that he is criticizing. I bought his book at a “Christian Bookstore”. He has to sell books, advertise, and sell himself to make a living.

Smith refers to Michael Card on several occasions in the book. While I’m not a huge fan of his music, I don’t discount his ministry and calling to lead others in worship. But to imply that modern “Worship” has contributed to the decline of the Evangelical church because it makes money is a little hypocritical.

My problem is that we have created this “us against them” mentality. This “Christian” sub culture has so isolated themselves in almost every way from the outside world that they can’t communicate or relate to our present culture. Yes, they know their Bible, but they can’t relate it to anyone. Most interaction with the outside world is heated arguments over beliefs. You see “Christians” shooting their mouth off on TV and other media all the time. I’m not saying that we don’t have the right when asked to share the hope that is within us but do we have to be so obnoxious about it. I won’t even talk about how much damage the “Christian Political Machine” has done over the years.

The Media discussion in the book is another puzzling thing to me. I’d like to know what the huge difference is between reading scripture or lyrics in a hymnal and reading them on a screen. It’s not the medium. It’s the way it’s presented. I don’t see anywhere in scripture where it says we can’t worship God in different ways or through different media mediums. I’m sure when someone came up with the idea of using hymnals somebody had a cow.

I don’t like that my church has to pay CCLI several hundred dollars a year. Who ever came up with that idea was brilliant. I wished I would of thought of that one. I certainly hope that the artists are getting the majority of the royalties. If there is one thing with the Modern Worship machine that I have a problem with it would be CCLI. If your band plays a David Crowder song during worship they shouldn’t have to pay to do so. Sure, give him credit for the song. But the church is not recording it for resale. If they do then they need to get permission from the artist and then pay royalties to the artist/publisher.

Another thing in the book that really bothered me was the criticism of “short term missions”. As a youth minister Short Term Missions are a way for me to introduce students to serving not only locally but overseas. God may be calling some of my students to be missionary’s. What are they supposed to wait until there old enough? Then they choose to be a missionary without any experience whatsoever. I didn’t want to become a youth minister because It just popped in their one day. I did because I experienced it.

I like the direction that some churches are heading in. Churches that are passionate about the Word of God, passionate about worship, and passionate about serving and caring for others. Have we got it all figured out? Do we always do it right? Of course not.

I would not recommend this book to anyone. I think it is critical and obviously motivated by a traditionalist and fundamentalist agenda. I know we need to remember our history. Our History is God’s word, period. Remember the Sabbath, Remember the Sacraments, all of the things that the Scriptures tell us to remember, especially who God is and what He wants us to be. Everything sense then has been influenced by culture and interpretation. I’m not here to figure out whether Jesus would have used Media Shout or Powerpoint to convey his message.

Speaking of “church history”, maybe I’ll start another “Crusade” and force people to accept Christ at gunpoint.

What I found, is that I did in fact share a number of Smith’s concerns about contemporary evangelicalism, but for very different reasons, and with very different ideas about the necessary solutions. Oddly enough, at times it even left me wanting to defend some of the same evangelical practices that I would be likely to critique in other contexts (the “seeker-friendly” mega-church movement for instance.) Smith’s main “quarrels” center on the contemporary evangelical sub-culture. He identifies what he sees as five main problems:

1) its disconnection from Christian history or tradition and with little vision for the future (what he calls the “new provincialism”, a term he borrows from poet and essayist Allen Tate);
2) a “triumph of sentimentality”, by which he means what he thinks has been an overemphasis on God’s love and mercy to the exclusion of God’s power and judgment, or human sinfulness;
3) the Christian-industrial complex, which he sees as corrupting true Christian community with marketing and money;
4) “body-count evangelism”, which he blames on the legacy of 19th century evangelist Charles Finney and sees as sacrificing depth of discipleship for the sake of higher numbers of superficial converts; and
5) what he calls “the great stereopticon”, by which he mainly means television, though he would also include most other forms of visual media, and which he thinks undermines God’s “preferred medium” of communication, i.e. words.

It should be said that Smith admits right up front that he is writing for “theologically conservative, evangelical” Christians, so I really can’t fault him when I just flat out disagree with some of his assumptions about the way things ought to be versus the way things are. He’s not writing for someone like me. That said, I found that on at least a few points (especially his critique of the Christian-industrial complex and some aspects of his critique of body-count evangelism) I did agree with his assessment of what was wrong. I just didn’t buy into his assumptions about why they were wrong, or how things ought to be instead. It’s hard to summarize all the ways in which this was the case, but I guess I could just say that his approach was a bit too conservative, Calvinist, dogmatic, and generally negative towards anything new for my taste.

And, to be honest, on a number of points I really felt like he was overstating his case against contemporary evangelicalism, and failing to note that a lot of the current trends (e.g. contemporary worship music, seeker-sensitivity, grace-oriented preaching, visual and dramatic arts in worship, innovative ministry methods, attempts at cultural relevance, etc.) that he criticizes are themselves reactions to and corrections for even bigger problems in the traditional churches that contemporary evangelicalism has evolved out of (e.g. stale and lifeless worship, a ghetto-mentality in churches that turned off newcomers and seekers, an over-emphasis and on moralism and judgmentalism to the exclusion of the “good” part of the “good news”, etc.) Reminding myself of this actually made me more sympathetic towards contemporary evangelicalism than I typically am. In this regard the book felt even more negative and critical than many of us emergent types often get accused of being. Whereas most emergents want to take the good and leave the bad from the evangelical world, for Smith (with the exception of a few positive examples he lifts up at the end) it seemed like it was almost all bad – like evangelicalism had taken a wrong turn shortly after Jonathan Edwards, and has been in a downward spiral ever since.

However, while this book certainly isn’t targeted towards and emergent audience, I have a feeling that it will have a certain appeal to those in the anti-institutional, organic church/simple church stream of the conversation, and especially those who resonate with guys like Frank Viola or George Barna. For those who are deeply disillusioned with the hype and marketing and consumerism of the evangelical sub-culture, or who have been burned-out or repulsed by the superficiality of the mega-church world, this book will speak to those issues. Personally though, I was not impressed, and I found the “positive vision” he tried to cast in the last few chapters to be rather scattered and exceedingly thin (it basically comes down to church planting). For a much more thorough critique of these same sorts of ills (from a pastor and scholar, as opposed to a journalist), I’d instead recommend my friend Dave Fitch’s book “The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies”. While I don’t always agree with Dave either, I find his take on all this to be much more nuanced and well-argued (not to mentioned geared towards postmoderns like myself) than Smith’s.

A Lover’s Quarrel…

My job was to review this book. But, reviews usually neglect engagement with the actual material. Instead, I’m starting a dialog and I’m gonna invite the author into the discussion.

What is New Provincialism?

“The modern evangelical church is most decidedly not a church that is rooted in time and place.” (pg. 57)

Provincialism is essentially forgetting where you are in a story.

“New provincialism” is the problem where the church forgets where it is in God’s story.

It’s being Simba, a full-grown lion who is friends with creatures that should be food; eating insects instead of zebras and gazelles. Unless he remembers who he is and where he came from, he will be forever floating as an immature adolescent in an adult body.

Growing up involves gaining a sense of identity.

Christ’s story has always been historically rooted. Disciples of Christ have existed for two millennia. If we lose sight of our spiritual parents throughout time, we’re essentially self-made bastards.

Recovery

“…At maximum, the new provincialism has so dislocated us from history and biblical tradition that the evangelical church risks ceasing to be a Christian church at all.”

If anybody wonders why I’m so emphatically opposed to popular understandings of the end times (premillenial eschatology), it’s because the theology neglects church history and pridefully asserts that it knows better.

Once you forget church history and biblical tradition, it’s easy to get caught up in garbage like the Left Behind series and becoming so survival focused that you forget to actually focus on discipleship and spiritual formation.

Our key to recovery is understanding church history.

True sons stand on the backs of their fathers.

Questions

1. How have you lost your sense of your place in history?
2. What are you doing to recover it?

Let me preface this review by saying that I am not that smart, not nearly as smart as Mr. Smith, anyway, so please filter any comments I have about this book based on that information. It is quite possible that his arguments are simply over my head.

There are several arguments that Mr. Smith makes that do not make logical sense to me. One of his complaints is the rising popularity of using media in worship services. He calls this “the great stereopticon.” His argument seems to be that media such as television and movies has degraded the morality of our country, so it shouldn’t be embraced in the church. Using that logic, I could make the argument that air conditioning has been instrumental in making our society increasingly more lazy, so churches shouldn’t install climate control systems.

There also seems to be a number of contradictions in the book. For instance, he believes that the megachurch model is inherently flawed and tells the story of K.P. Yohannan, the founder of Gospel for Asia, who “resolved not to build a megachurch nor a megaministry” because he saw the inherent flaws in a large organization. He then goes on to tell that one of Gospel for Asia’s closest associations is the Believer’s Church of India which has over 1.7 million members and includes one diocese with 1200 churches, 13 Bible colleges, and 67 Bridges of Hope programs for children. I’m not familiar with the definition of “megaministry”, but that sounds like it leans toward mega.

One point that I agreed with him on was the ineffectiveness of short-term missions and career, non-indigenous missionaries. The model that he described as being the most successful, however, is remarkably similar to Rick Warren and Saddleback Church’s P.E.A.C.E. plan. An irony is that Mr. Smith spends quite a bit of time criticizing Warren and other megachurch pastors.

Another complaint Mr. Smith has is with large evangelistic gatherings and crusades. He then explains that one of Yohannan’s influences was George Verwer, founder of Operation Mobilization, who came to know Christ at a Billy Graham Crusade. To me, this is the resolution to both mine and Mr. Smith’s peeves. Although every ministry or church is inherently flawed, mainly because they are all run by humans which are inherently flawed, it is comforting to know that God is bigger than all their imperfections and short comings. God can take a megachurch ministry such as Saddleback Church or a parachurch ministry such as the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and use it to transform lives and inspire individuals and groups to think of creative ways to reach more people for Christ.

Again, perhaps I am not intellectually qualified to review a book by such an accomplished author, but in my observations, Mr. Smith has more complaints than solutions. I still recommend reading the book, if for nothing more than using it as a prompting to evaluate your ministry. It caused me to take stock of my own ministry goals and motives.

It’s rare for me to both agree and disagree violently with a book that I’ve overall enjoyed reading. But that has been my experience with this recent work from Warren Cole Smith. Overall this is a well-written work, showcasing Warren’s skill as an investigative journalist, which certainly helps the reader engage with the case he presents. If I was to have one criticism of Warren’s overall approach to this work it would be that it is far to US-centric for non-American readers; certainly after the first couple of chapters I was getting tired of all examples being related to the US church.

With regards to the style of this investigation into the current malaise affecting the (especially American) Evangelical church, I appreciated the candour with which Warren diagnoses some serious problems but also felt the personal accusations against some living & past evangelical leaders was unnecessarily personal; for example is it necessary to accuse Rick Warren of being a liar or Billy Graham & John Stott of being universalists to establish the points in question? I don’t think so. I will come onto the treatment of past Christian leaders like Charles Finney and Jacob Arminius later; suffice it to say here that I think they also suffer unfairly in this assessment of their approach & theology.

That said, I want to return to starting positively as there is much in this book to commend.

Warren, I feel, does us a service by highlighting a number of problems with the Evangelical Church today. These need to be named so they can be addressed.

1) The myth of a growing church – exposing some of the hyperbole that seeks to present the cannibalisation of moving Christians from smaller local churches into mega-churches as growth (when really the Christian church in the USA and UK is shrinking).
2) A new ‘provincialism’ that ignores lessons from the past (even if I think Warren is selective in the lessons he values being learnt) and does not engage with the good work being done by the theological community (even if I also think Warren does not engage with useful innovations/improved understanding from scholars).
3) The triumph of sentimentality – a version of the Christian faith that is all about me & what will meet my needs (what I once heard John Smith at Greenbelt decry as the Oprah Winfrey version of church).
4) The ‘Christian industrial complex’, which is such a problem that here I think Warren actually went easy on a problem (particularly the Praise & Worship industry) which has polluted both our theology & our corporate experience of real worship with McChurch.
5) Body count evangelism, or as I prefer to call it ‘gospel fodder’ & the endemic problem of seeking impressive growth statistics rather than real disciples (which can actually also be a problem in smaller churches needing the encouragement of an occasional convert and pressurising or misrepresenting a level of interest with a lasting change.
6) The danger of being seduced by the allure of the Media in our multi-media networked society, what Warren so evocatively calls ‘The great Stereoptigan; with the too common result that the media is the message rather than a servant of the message.

As well as this useful critique, in the latter sections of the book, which seek to look more broadly for potential cures for this malaise, I agree with Warren on some of these as well. I too believe smaller churches with genuine community and accountable relationships are important and that conversion to discipleship (as a journey) is what we need to seek not just additive growth in attendees. I was also really heartened to see Warren look wider than the UK, or even any Colonial powers, for positive examples of a better way to ‘do church’. I too believe post-colonial expressions of church in non-Western indigenous communities can teach us a lot about lived out Christian faith in local communities.

However, where I really did disagree with Warren was in the theological aspects of the cure he recommends and the parochial way this option is presented. For Warren, it is obvious that the solution lies with a return to Reformed/Calvinist theology and ideally the practice of certain Presbyterian denominations. As well as disagreeing with this (and actually being very disappointed that after so much good groundwork Warren is looking to a past model for the solution without considering where that fell short), I was offended by Warren’s treatment of the major alternative to this theological school within Protestant Evangelical Theology. This treatment includes scathing attacks on Jacob Arminius & Charles Finney and statements which make clear that Warren view Arminian theology as unbiblical and wrong. This really was too much to bear and the most visibly partisan part of this book. It was interesting that Warren did not reference the positive contributions of John Wesley (including his mutually respectful relationship with Whitfield) nor the contribution of Booth or leading Pentecostal theologians. It was hard not to see this selective reading of the past as somewhat hypocritical given Warren’s own critique of selective presentation of the ‘Second Great Awakening’ by Evangelical leaders.

To read my full review, see: http://web.mac.com/paul.laughlin/Loffers_Lair/Book_Blog/Entries/2009/8/18_A__Lovers_Quarrel_with_the_Evangelical_Church.html

In his insightful critique of the evangelical movement and its excesses the book’s author, Warren Cole Smith, takes on such topics as “The Evangelical Myth,” “The Christian Industrial Complex,” and “Body-Count Evangelism.” Smith helps us to see that, even in the church, bad ideas have bad consequences despite good intentions.

Lover’s Quarrel powerfully declares that “God wants the church to be the church and that even the world wants the church to be the church. It’s the church that doesn’t want to be the church. That’s the core problem.”

If you want to check out this book go to the official site for Warren Cole Smith and the book here, where you can read the introduction and also purchase the book.

To see original review : http://kevinstewart.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/a-lovers-quarrel-with-the-evangelical-church/

This book certainly provided food for thought, and there are several pieces of information that I’m glad I read. However, much of the book sounded like the author airing some grudges because of the way things are being done. I believe it was Brian McLaren in his book “More Ready Than You Realize” who stated that so many Christians build up walls between themselves and the things they wish to change simply by having an attitude of self righteousness [my paraphrase]. I felt the author approached the subject matter with a certain piousness that did more to make me defensive than to help me see the “error of my ways”.

I feel that the author had good intentions, but often picked extreme examples to illustrate how bad things have gotten. While I don’t agree with everything the author had to say, I do believe that his points were valid, from a standpoint that newer styles of churches should watch out for some of these pitfalls that others have fallen into. Often times these churches are walking a line that needs to be walked carefully. That being said these churches aren’t all bad, and I believe the author could have made an effort to see the things they are doing that do work. Overall I wasn’t impressed with this book, and probably won’t be recommending it to my friends.

For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man’s work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15

To see this review in it’s original form: http://rahijada.blogspot.com/2009/08/lovers-quarrel-with-evangelical-church.html

The book A Lovers Quarrel with the Evangelical Church by Warren Smith is both stimulating and somewhat disappointing. It’s stimulating in that I am glad that some people are aware that the evangelical church doesn’t seem like she has a handle on our culture. The church seems like it is loosing or has lost her influence on our culture. More later.

I also was disappointed with this book because I was expecting more ideas about what to do about this “lack”. I suppose that we could “go back” to what worked before the second great awakening (as the author seems to suggest) but it seems to me that we’re past that and rather than instituting an archaic way of doing things I’d like to be able to take what we are already doing (or should be doing) and re-work it so it can be what God wants.

I am like Warren – I love the church. I believe that God has called me to help prepare His Bride (the church) for His return. One of the things that frustrates me is that people come to know the Lord and then when times get tough (or easy) they leave the church and blame (or forget) God. I agree with Warren in that we (established churches) have watered down the Gospel and made it easy for people to “be saved” when in fact people really need to understand what they’re signing up for when they receive Christ as Saviour and LORD.Too many people have simply made a ‘decision’ to follow Christ but have no desire for or understanding of the commitment necessary to allow God to be your LORD and Saviour.

This book presents a very real problem (the lack of influence the church has on our culture and the operating mentality a lot of churches utilize to ‘market’ themselves to an apathetic culture). As a pastor in a church I am pleased with the call to be more Scripturally based in the discipleship options that we implement at our church. It disturbs me that we are quick to utilize books and methods that are written about or based on Scripture but rarely do we simply use Scripture to properly disciple our adherents.

That said, I am a bit disappointed that the author doesn’t seem to go far enough in helping to create a solution to the dilemma that we face in the modern (or post-modern) evangelical church. He seems to be suggesting that our culture and the “Great Stereopticon” have diluted (or even twisted) the Gospel message. In some ways – at least as he points out in his book – I agree but at the same time I believe that a lot of good has come out of the church. People do find wholeness. People do find peace. Peple do find a life-long purpose. People do enter into real community. People do have a life-changing experience with God. I have met these people and I am one of them.

The book is a good ‘wake-up’ but left me wanting more time to work out a better solution to our issues. I would recommend the book but I want to believe that we can redeem the times and this culture through the church – Christ’s Bride – so I’m not sure it’s a good book for someone to read if they already have an axe to grind with the faulty church and simply want more ammunition with which to continue to break down the church

First, Smith has been around. He’s seen most of the subcultures within evangelicalism, and his personal experience of wandering in this wilderness goes back almost four decades. Not to put too fine a point on it, he’s an elder – the kind of man we badly need right now.

Second, Smith is a seasoned reporter. One reason he has seen so much territory is that he has reported for the Evangelical Press News Service for years. Most Christian books on the subject of why we’re so bad off make no pretense of documenting a story, naming names, and holding to standards of journalism. Smith has pounded the pavement to get this story, and his disciplined reporting puts him in a different category from mere opinion-mongers. His reporting on Jack Abramoff and Ralph Reed, to tug just one thread, is illuminating and adds depth to his larger argument.

Third, Smith brings intellectual weight to his diagnoses. He draws upon the critiques of modern life and media by Richard Weaver and Neil Postman, among others.

Most writing about evangelicalism treats “the culture” as a post-war artifact, telling us yet again that the World War II generation was more institutionally oriented than Generation Next, or whatever – stuff that basically comes from marketing literature. Even a well-documented book like UnChristian is essentially a public relations consult. These books can sometimes tell us what is happening, but rarely why.

Smith understands that evangelicals have embraced the vast scale of modern life without asking whether that life is a fantasy. Huge churches with impersonal systems, vast parachurch enterprises with assets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, mass media strategies that address no one in particular – we have invested in these structures without considering what harm they do to our face-to-face relationships. There are reasons why we committed this folly, and history can tell us what they were.

A Lover’s Quarrel describes the “new provincialism” of evangelicals, the blithe dismissal of the importance of history and ideas in practical ministry. The book also dissects the sentimentality of evangelicals, their refusal to face reality. Smith’s portrayal of “the Christian-Industrial Complex” shows that the media world perverts the message of the Gospel not just because of the love of money, but because of things like Christian radio’s devotion to its fantasy-Mom, “Becky.”

These narratives are informed by long-standing critics of media and society, like Weaver and Postman, who were sounding alarms while evangelicals were lost in a dream world. The historical and intellectual sense of proportion Smith brings to this subject are badly needed.

Fourth, Smith offers a path out of the evangelical mess, one that restores life to a relational scale, both with human beings and with God. The path is that of vocation, the ancient and biblical notion of calling.

But I’d hate to spoil the end of a great read.

So I can imagine the 18 year old Steve Heyduck saying, were he to meet the 45 year old Steve Heyduck.

I’m not nearly so sure what that 18 year old might have said to Warren Cole Smith after reading this book.

Smith identifies the problem early; on page 4 he states: “The evangelical church has spawned the megachurch. It had become about power buidling, not power sharing. And it certainly was not about power sacrificing.” But he still identifies himself as evangelical, so continues the book from the perspective of wanting to identify the prolems and issues with the intent of being part of the solution.

Smith’s work is very helpful in identifying a couple of trends within evangelicalism. First, he charts the history of the modern evangelical movement flowing from the Second Great Awakening rather than the first. This is significant because the Second Great Awakening was marked much more by emotional experience of conversion than by actual transformation of individuals and then society around them.

Second, I think Smith is dead-on in characterizing much of evangelicalism as caught up in the “Christian-Industrial Complex.” But are there really any coherent arguments out there today that would disagree that the church as a whole, and the evangelical church included, has drunk too deeply from the waters of consumerism and market capitalism?

I have already posted my concern over Smith’s chapter on “the Great Stereopticon.” Let me summarize it this way. Smith is grieved at the priority given to technology in worship-chiefly the overwhelming move towards the use if electronic image-making in worship. Smith concludes: “Words-and not pictures, drama, or any other medium-seem to be the preferred strategy fo God, of Jesus, and of scripture.” (p.179)

His problem is that the example he gives of the use of words is Jonathan Edwards – lead theologian of the First Great Awakening. Edwards is perhaps most famous for “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”

This is not the “word” to which Jesus had access, however. Jesus lived 1500 years before the printing press, Edwards more than a century after. Shane Hipps does a fine job explaining the difference the printing press made in Christendom in his The Hidden Power of Electronic Culture.

To summarize my contention against Smith’s assertion that God’s preferred medium of communication is the word is that the “Word became flesh, and dwelt among us.” God’s preferred medium was the Incarnation, not the printed word!

I like Smith’s suggestions for the evangelical church:

1. focus on church planting rather than mega-church building
2. regain a perspective on vocation
3. disciple for depth as opposed to numerical gain.

Read this book. Engage Smith’s arguments. The tone is conciliatory and encouraging.

Much as I wonder hypothetical conversations with an earlier, far less mature version of myself, most of my growth has been connected with the milieu that is Smith’s focus; for this connection and history I am grateful.

http://misterlib.com/2009/08/10/a-lovers-quarrel-with-the-evangelical-church/#more-738

Some of the main issues Smith tackles are those of the “Christian-Industrial Complex” in which he brings up topics like Christian publishing houses, record labels, and the like that make millions of dollars a year and questions their motives.

He criticizes what he calls “Body-Count Evangelism” in which numbers become more important that the souls of those people. Smith makes a very true statement: “In the era of body-count evangelism, people become statistics. True salvations become opportunities not for joy, by for bragging.” It’s a sad truth that I’ve seen this very thing take place. Thankfully not in the church I’m currently serving. I would say it’s also easy to look at the surface of some things and make judgement calls rather than seeing what happens behind the scenes. Sure there are people that slip through the cracks… I wish this wasn’t the case but, the truth is in large churches it just happens sometimes. The goal is not to allow anyone to simply walk an isle and leave. We want to win people to Jesus Christ by sharing His love and message. We want to then not count them as a number for a quota, but instead grow them in their spiritual walk with Jesus Christ and then send them out to the world as representatives of the love and message of Jesus Christ they themselves came to know. I’m thankful that it’s more than numbers at my church home. I’m thankful we’re not a statistic and that we don’t count them.

Overall Smith writes with honesty and passion towards the topics he addresses. However, there are moments when it seems that Smith is ranting more than examining and condemning more than diagnosing. Early in the book Smith is a but confusing with his writing and mentions about 4-5 items that are the “theme” of the book. I felt myself confused about what exactly the theme of the book was and wondering why my conclusions were different than the author’s expressed ones. The book didn’t pick up for me until about the third chapter. A Lover’s Quarrel With The Evangelical Church is a decently written and raises some good questions that all evangelical churches need to examine and be reminded of.

http://thegreatrescue.blogspot.com/2009/08/lovers-quarrel-with-evangelical-church.html

I was super excited to get Warren Cole Smith’s new book A Lover’s Quarrel With the Evangelical Church. I cannot, however, bring myself to read it in it’s entirety, so forgive the sad, half-hearted review.

From the title, I assumed (and you know what “they” say that means!) that it would be a book written from a “lover’s” perspective. Like I said, I did not read the book in it’s entirety, so I could be wrong based on later chapters… but the part that I did read read more like a “christianized” tabloid. I actually feel a bit guilty for reading as much as I did about some of the failings (perceived or actual) of Christians listed quite prolifically in the early chapters of the book. I apologize to the author if I am giving an inaccurate account of the overall heart of the writing… The style and especially the content of the beginning is not something I am comfortable reading.

For those who may be interested in learning more about the book, you can go to this site, which belongs to the author.

Reluctantly,
Jaimee

http://bit.ly/Tg3B0

Warren Cole Smith is an evangelical, but he is one who has deep concerns about the trajectory of American evangelicalism over the last 25 years. Smith, publisher of the Evangelical Press News Service, has compiled these concerns in the challenging new book, A Lover’s Quarrel with The Evangelical Church. I picked this book up expecting to find many theological critiques of evangelicalism (individualism, bondage to modernity, etc.) that would be similar to those that I regularly hear from my peers in post-evangelical churches – except, of course, coming from one who has chosen to stay committed to the evangelical church. Thus, it came as a surprise that Smith’s concerns were not primarily of this sort. Indeed, Smith is content to accept the basic theological moorings of evangelicalism, and focuses his questions instead on the ethics and praxis of American evangelicalism.

Smith begins with a challenge that will resonate with most post-evangelical readers, a critique of the evangelical attraction to power, both right-wing political power and the power of numbers manifested in the church growth movement, etc.

…

Read the full review:
http://bit.ly/Tg3B0

The very idea that a hymnal is something that “has historically been considered vital to church life.” p.110 is just absurd. For most of church history there has been no hymnal, a hymnody, but not a hymnal. Indeed the hymnal that forced people to look down at words on a page is a product of the print medium, something that receives no critique the way other more modern communication mediums do.

Of course words are God’s preferred medium p.179 but there is no distinction made between the spoken word and the written word, it is almost as if the two are synonymous but they aren’t.

Attacks on Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, Billy Graham and others just further frustrated me as I was hoping to find something redemptive in this book, some solution to the problem, yet nothing substantive was offered, only the feeling of condemnation. Certainly there was a rallying cry to return to a certain theological framework, which appeared to be a Calvinism as defined by the Synod of Dort.

This is one book I was glad to be done reading and not one I would recommend to others.

I thought the book would give an honest assessment of the lasting fruit of the evangelical movement, and tackle issues like greed and corruption. (And for the most part, it did.)

I did NOT expect it to be a book largely centered around and promoting Calvinistic theology. And that killed it for me.

If I had wanted to read a book about Calvinistic doctrine, I would have picked a book whose title suggested it. While making some very valid points about the state of evangelicalism, its detachment from the broader history of the church, its failure to retain a large percentage of its converts over the long term, and its product/brand industrialism…the author’s main point seemed to be theological in nature, using the symptoms described above as evidence of faulty theology. Warren Cole Smith, a journalist, never specifically says he subscribes to Reformed theology; however, his multitude of favorable references to Calvin, Jonathan Edwards and Reformed doctrine (not to mention his negative references to Charles Finney and Arminianism) make his bias clear.

The problem I have with this is that the book was billed as a journalistic expose, not an argument of a theological viewpoint. And for this, I fault the author with the same bait-and-switch tactics he would no doubt accuse evangelicalism of. I simply do not like being taken in under false pretense.

I mentioned that Smith is a journalist. And to the extent that he functions as one, I think he actually does a good job of it. When he is presenting facts and sorting through the data, the information he presents is very helpful. While I didn’t concur that all the data points to a problem (he seems to believe the church’s use of modern technology is a negative, for example), there can be no doubt that the evangelical church has some major problems, and he presents that case pretty well. I found myself heartily agreeing with him on several of these points, and he filled in a lot of historical gaps for me along the way.

It is when he began drawing conclusions about the data that his true agenda came to the forefront, and his journalism began to fall short. Some of his conclusions were over-drawn, in fact. For example, he repeatedly stated that evangelicalism’s separation from the church of history flirted with denying the Incarnation of Christ–without ever really explaining clearly how the two were connected. Also, he gave two quotes (with no context) from revivalist Charles Finney to claim that Finney rejected the core doctrines of God’s sovereignty and man’s sinfulness–when in my view, the quotes did no such thing. I am neutral about Finney, myself, because I don’t know enough about his doctrine to say either way. But any journalist, especially Christian, should know better than to label someone a heretic without providing more substantive proof of such a claim.

But even more provocative than this is the fact that Cole’s overall conclusions about what should be done to rescue evangelicalism were more about theology than they were about methodology. What is surprising to me is that I would have thought someone having a “lover’s quarrel” with evangelicalism would lean to the liberal side of things; in fact, Cole does the opposite. To me, there was a clear “this-is-the-right-way-to-believe” vibe in what he wrote that left little latitude for other interpretations; and again, he did not properly tie the data to his claims.

It isn’t that I have a particular issue with or grudge against Calvinists or Reformed theology; I tend to take theology with a grain of salt, anyway, including my own. My beef was that I came away feeling utterly preached to and lectured, rather than simply informed. I thought journalists were supposed to be neutral.

BOTTOM LINE: Can’t recommend it, at least, not as a fair assessment of the issues tackled in the book. The strong Reformed bias overshadows the good information that can be gleaned. (At least, it did for me.) This is not the kind of book that convinces people to change their thinking–it will likely only rally those who already agree with it. Which means Calvinists would probably love it. Thumbs down for me.