McSwain, Stetzer & A Renewed Mission for American Churches

This week, I read & shared a piece by Steve McSwain from the Huffington Post religion blog. McSwain seems to be a good guy, and he is a respected church leader. His article, "Why Nobody Wants to Go to Church Anymore" is a well-reasoned response to a previous blog post by Ed Stetzer on the Christianity Today blog. Stetzer is another widely read Christian leader. In his article, "The State of the Church in America: Hint: It's Not Dying," Stetzer argues that "The church in America is in transition," and that we shouldn’t really think of it as declining or dying.

What is Stetzer saying? He wants to reassure us that the American church is just getting rid of "cultural" and "congregational" Christians – i.e., those who aren't serious about their faith. According to Stetzer, this will leave the church with a group of people who can seriously engage society as "a mobilized mission force in the midst of this mission field." The biggest threat to this, Stetzer argues, is bad statistics that demoralize the church. By saying that we are declining or dying, we're needlessly beating ourselves up. The implication is that we should be thankful that the chaff is being blown away and that we will be left with "those who are practicing a vibrant faith."

McSwain rightly calls out Stetzer for his judgmentalism: "I've got news for you, Mr. Stetzer, there are scores of people who have left the church, not because they possess some phony or inferior faith, as you would like to believe, but precisely because they do not want to be around judgmental people like you. They have left, not to abandon their faith, but precisely because they wish to preserve it. You would be much better off to leave the judgment-making to Someone infinitely more qualified to do so (Matt. 7:1)."

I agree with McSwain. Stetzer’s article wouldn’t fare well in a graduate-level seminar. His “categories” are based on pure conjecture, and his own “stats” are just guesswork. This is highly ironic, since Stetzer claims to be fed up with an abuse of stats. It seems as if his response to "the tryanny of statistics" is to just throw them out and go on gut feelings. That's no way to operate, and McSwain is totally right to call him out on that.

But here's the question. Aren’t McSwain’s thoughts also based on his subjective perspective? What statistics back up his 7 critiques of American churches?

So here’s what I’m wondering: Is this snarky conversation necessary? Doesn't it just sound like more of the same: Christian leaders hating on each other in public? Or is there something meaningful to be gained from this exchange?

Here’s my answer: Yes, this is a good discussion. But not for the reasons most might think. This exchange has clarified something important.

You see, there's something shocking out of this. And it's totally being missed. McSwain doesn’t seem to see this in Stetzer. And I don’t know what Stetzer would say to McSwain.

Both Stetzer and McSwain actually share the same basic conclusion. Here's their shared conclusion:

The church has to be about the mission of God in the midst of changed world.

I agree with McSwain that Stetzer's article is off-putting. It’s based upon what he wants to believe rather than on facts. But just because McSwain is able to identify some key problems with many churches today doesn't mean that he is any smarter than Stetzer. I mean, who can't identify some key problems with most churches in our communities?

What McSwain doesn't grant or doesn't recognize is that, in spite of Stetzer's odd logic, there is a growing consensus among a wide swath of churches and church leaders about what we need to do. Yes, there are those who don't get it. There are those who think we just need one more program, one more worship redesign, one more building remodel, or one more silver bullet to suddenly bring our world back to our church building for worship services. That’s just wrong. But more and more people are getting the message. 

Emil Brunner with Karl Barth, circa 1964

And that message is that we have to re-learn how to be about the mission of God in the midst of a changed world. As Emil Brunner wrote years ago, "The Church exists by mission, just as a fire exists by burning. Where there is no mission, there is no Church; and where there is neither Church nor mission, there is no faith." Bruner was not referring to foreign missions, per se, but rather to a sense that the church exists in order to reach the world around us for Christ.

When church leaders from around the world attend our conferences or listen to wise, elder statesmen like Wilbert Shenk, they get the (false?) impression that North American church leaders are dealing with key missiological questions, and that we are doing so in a spirit of honor and mutual respect. Perhaps they see what some of us can't yet understand – namely, that many of us are coming to some very similar sounding conclusions, even if we didn't all arrive there via the same path.

I praise God that here in the US, many, many, many Christian leaders are remembering that mission is why we exist. And they are committing themselves to discover how to do this. We may not know where we’re headed or how to get there, but we are increasingly understanding that the church exists for mission to the world, rather than thinking that the world exists to reinforce the church.

Rather than snapping at one another in public back-and-forth conversations, perhaps Christian leaders might do well to at least affirm (where possible) that we are starting to speak a common language and share some common goals. I can’t agree – publicly or privately – with all Christian leaders on every issue. But when it comes to a rediscovery of why we exist, many of us have come to some similar conclusions upon which we can build if we listen to one another and treat each with honor and mutual respect. That unity (or at least the appearance of unity) where possible in key areas might go a lot farther toward renewing our mission than vocal disdain and ridicule for one another.