Spectrum of belief, take two
There is something that, in the evangelical world, I was completely unaware of, but in the Anglican (and presumably the greater Catholic church) seems to have known for quite some time.
When talking to my good friend Mark, who works in the Anglican church I’ve begun to explore, he half-jokingly commented that his church is “seeker-hostile,” poking a little fun at the “seeker-friendly” philosophy that the evangelical church often touts. But what he means is that, yes, the traditional church is a difficult thing to jump right into with no background in the Christian faith.
Mark then goes on to point out that many people come to the traditional church when they feel as though the evangelical church has nothing left for them, as though it got them so far but once they’ve reached a certain maturity in their faith, they often feel as though there’s “something more” that the evangelical tradition can’t provide so that their spiritual growth can continue. This is, indeed, the main reason why I personally felt the need to abandon evangelicalism.
I just realized that this has something in common with my idea about a spectrum of belief. Maybe it’s time to revise that idea to say this:
It appears as though the evangelical church is good at getting people in the door, at population growth, but in a lot of cases it isn’t so hot at the continual spiritual growth at a certain point. It also appears that, though “seeker-hostile,” the Anglican church is not so hot at the population growth, but really good at the continual spiritual growth.
Here we see where a spectrum of belief — as there are disagreements between these two sections of the Church — is keeping many people, myself included, from falling off the map. I can’t discount the fact that the evangelical church built a certain foundation of faith in me for many years, but when it came time to continue to explore my faith, Anglicanism and the liturgical tradition has become the logical next step.
Mark says he thinks there needs to be a reconciliation of the two churches, and that these two points in the spectrum need to have a line drawn in between them so that the greater Church can do everything it was originally intended to do. If there were no Anglican or Catholic or evangelical, this spectrum might still exist, but as a means of growth in faith rather than a split in the church as is the present case.
This is something that I’ve long struggled with in the evangelical churches I’ve been too. I, too, dislike the almost exclusive emphasis on finding new believers, as opposed to growing the believers they already have. I believe that the church is there to grow the body, not in numbers, but in spiritual quality. Then it’s the job of the individual member to live their life in a way that intrigues people to want to know them and ask about why they are different (happy? content? able to deal with hardship?), presenting the opportunity to welcome the non-believer into the fold.
Most of the Reformed churches I’ve been to are also “seeker-hostile”, so I would caution not to think that the Catholic church is the only place you can find like that. However, I’ve seen a serious lack of grace in both Reformed and Catholic churches. While I’m not an Arminian, I’ve tended to like the appreciation of grace towards others at their churches, but I also have issues with their doctrine (as well as the Catholics’).
Comment by Tim Schmidt — April 28, 2009 @ 10:21 amTim Keller, in his message about idolatry, said that the reason many people have a conversion experience but never seem to grow or get anywhere in their spiritual walk is because their idols are never exposed, confronted, and ultimately destroyed.
I think that, coupled with what you’re saying is a good and helpful criticism of Western evangelicalism.
Comment by Lucas Knisely — April 28, 2009 @ 11:12 am