Truth & Faith

Surveys can be quite useful. They tell us many intriguing things about the people in a given society. Not only are they interesting, but sometimes they are even surprising. We encounter data that lead us to conclusions that are not exactly what we thought we would find. Surveys are also common. One need not spend more than a moment or two online before one invades our screens. It is increasingly difficult to even view the evening news without being bombarded with the latest polling data. In light of the usefulness, intrigue, and accessibility of sociological tools such as surveys, it’s no wonder the evangelical church has embraced them.

The Issue

In the last ten years a plethora of books have been released that spring from the latest findings concerning the churched and unchurched alike. Titles such as Surprising Insights from the Unchurched, Unchristian, They Like Jesus but Not the Church, Quitting Church, and most recently Lost and Found are widely popular. Many of these books provide fresh insights into what drives the way different people think about Christ and the church. Due to the undeniable influence these sorts of books have as they shape and inform the practices of the church, it is crucial for us to raise two important questions: 1) Is it appropriate for Christians to “do sociology”? In asking this, we’re not asking should Christians study sociology, for many godly men are involved in this field such as Os Guinness, Christian Smith, Peter Berger, and James Davison Hunter. Instead, the question might be better formulated as such: should we allow sociological findings, such as those in surveys and polls, inform and influence ecclesiology (the doctrine of the church)? And 2) If this is acceptable, what should it look like? What kinds of boundaries are there to be wary of?

OKAY – Let me stop here to provide a classic definition of sociology: “the science or study of the origin, development, organization, and functioning of human society.” A sociologist wants to find out why societies work they way they do. What do people value? Why do they value this? What factors have influenced the direction certain cultures have moved? As you can see by these questions, this academic discipline tends to be more descriptive than prescriptive. Most of the time evangelicals tend to extract the main points of these different studies, thereby determine what is shaping the thinking of those they are trying to reach, and also what is having an impact on those seated in the pews Sunday after Sunday. How this information is used tangibly in the program of the church varies from church to church, denomination to denomination. The secular studies are telling us what people say they believe, but also what they actually do. So what’s the harm in tapping into pure data telling us what would be very difficult to find out on our own time? After all, what pastor has time to drive all over his community, playing twenty questions with everyone?

A few key concerns arise very quickly. First, we are assuming (and hoping) that those doing these studies are balanced and unbiased. Of course, as social scientists they are going to have a hypothesis from which their study begins, but they are trying to let the facts speak for themselves. But how do we ensure that this is actually what is taking place? It’s one thing to read the pure data gleaned from longitudinal study. It’s another thing to have certain surveys copied and pasted into a user-friendly book by a charismatic author who has an agenda. Along with this, actual interviews with folks from the demographic who are surveyed are included in the text of the book. These have great emotional appeal – as real stories of real people ought to. However, what exactly are evangelicals trying to do with these sorts of things? Are we looking for an edge on the church down the street? Are we trying to reach our community with the Gospel, by any means necessary?

Another word of clarification might be helpful before we go further. Data is just that – data. It tends to be more raw and empirical. It must be interpreted within a larger framework of human understanding. We cannot merely study the values of a group of people based only on the kinds of movies they like. What about the kind of religious traditions they come from? What about the types of vocations they are involved in? Before data and information can be really be hard facts, it must be interpreted and understood. This ought to caution Christians even more from buying into the recommendations of the so-called experts in church growth theory. So in response to our first question of whether or not sociology is a viable discipline to glean from in understanding those the church is trying to reach, I think the answer is “yes, but…”. In explaining this answer, I will also be answering the second question posed earlier, as to how exactly we are to do this.

A Modest Proposal

I want to propose a three-fold grid or matrix that churchmen might apply to discern socio-cultural findings that is biblically faithful and spiritually appropriate. The first is the historical lens. It is often said if one wants to understand their times, then they ought to study the past. This is true, for when we have a healthy historical framework we are less prone to knee-jerk reactions when a new study initially catches us off guard. For instance, when one studies theological trends such as those of the emerging church, we find that many times these are just modifications of earlier developments in church history. When we use history well, we find there are things that have been neglected by the church in the last 20-30 years that had been practiced in the church for the previous 500 years. Other times people come up with “innovate approaches” that seem to remedy a contemporary problem, yet those in the apostolic age and the early church may have eschewed this practice! This sort of things happens when relevance is made an ultimate value.

No online survey tell us what Augustine said about the contemporary problems we face. Reading Augustine can. We cannot read church growth books to understand how deconstruction literary theory has influenced millenials and generation y-ers. We must use history well to better understand our own cultural captivity, whether it be the mainline-ization of prominent denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, and even the consumerism that has not left Baptist movements unaffected. Polls and surveys taken one month ago may be quick and easy, but actually doing the hard work of studying American cultural trends over an entire century, such as reading primary sources, resolutions, and statements of faith will aid us in our use of sociology.

The second lens through which we are to look when using sociology is that of theology.* Not many conservative evangelicals disagree that theology is crucial for the foundation of the church. However, when it comes to methodology and ecclesiology in general, things become a bit shady. For instance, if Christians affirm the fallenness of mankind and even the Christian’s daily struggle to die to self and live to Christ, why so much happy music all the time? When it comes to surveys and such for setting the agenda for approaching ministry, the doctrinal truths of Scripture are often dismissed as irrelevant.

Yet I find it interesting that I have never seen a poll that speaks about spiritual deadness. I have seen ones in which we see how many consider themselves good people, and even another recent poll indicating that most evangelicals don’t consider their religion the only way to eternal life. These are helpful insomuch that they remind us of what we see many passages in Scripture affirming. However, what might happen if some of the data collected showed us something different? Assume that a poll was released one day that said most folks considered themselves to be people in need. They admitted that they knew they weren’t perfect. I can imagine a temptation might arise for some in the church to take begin to augment their Gospel presentations to emphasize grace, and not holiness, God’s goodness, and not his wrath. After all, as one might say, people nowadays know they aren’t perfect. This is a far cry from the Bible’s teaching on how truly depraved people are, which is much more problematic than being “less than perfect.”

The third and final lens that ought to accompany the historical and theological is the pastoral lens. As I see it, essential to this are aspects of wisdom, relationality, and integrity. I think the first of these two come together logically, as good wisdom will lead us to realize that we need to understand people on the basis of real authentic relationships. Having a pastoral heart means we are compassionate to those whom we encounter because they are a person in the image of God, not a case study for our next article or book. We cannot buy into the kind of naïveté that says we truly understand people because we know what they like or don’t like. What about asking why they like those things? Should they like those things? Do people even really know what they want, for that matter? There needs to be a wariness toward thinking “we get people” because we know what the latest polling data shows. Reading polling data on baby boomer churchgoers isn’t really comparable to holding the hand of a baby boomer that has just received the news that they have terminal cancer. Studying the musical tastes of twenty something year olds will not provoke a sense of compassion for them as it will taking a hot meal to the young, unchurched couple next door who just had a miscarriage. Wisdom helps us to see that being relational, compassionate, and engaged with people is what aids our understanding over and above secular studies.

This is where the historical lens comes back into the picture. Sometimes in trying to discern why people leave the church or why they come back to the church, those in pastoral leadership who don’t have a firm grasp on history are disabled from exercising pastoral wisdom. If Baptist churchmen in particular would begin to come to terms with the recent century’s lack of emphasis on regenerate church membership, church discipline, and the dangers of toddler baptism and other practices leading to false assurance, this might better explain the nature of the struggle we are in. It isn’t merely socio-cultural factors keeping people away from church. More often than not, according to Scripture, it is sin. Could it be that most twenty something year old males don’t attend church, not because they don’t like Sunday School or the music, but because many of them are hung over on Sunday mornings from drinking on Saturday night, or too convicted after having slept with their girlfriend to attend? The last three churches I have served in have all been vastly different: a large congregation of farmers and teachers in a rural town; a small congregation of low-income elderly people in a major city; and a mid-size congregation of upwardly-mobile people living in a suburb of a major educational and research area. It is shocking how many common denominators, such as the above-mentioned scenario with young adults, can be found in each of these churches.

Conclusion

Ultimately the Reformation cry of “sola Scriptura” must once again be the heart-cry of contemporary Christians. It is in this holy word that we find that we are laboring in the Gospel ministry because every person in our communities is a never-dying soul for whom Christ died. That being the case, we dare not insult their intelligence by capitulating to the culture in order to reach them. If our message and our word from God is what we want them to hear, it must also guide us in how we go about reaching them. Sociology isn’t merely a secular discipline. As much as it reflects the unbiased study of God’s people in God’s world, it can be just as legitimate of an enterprise as counseling or teaching. Yet it must not be used at the expense of other academic disciplines. What surveys, polls, and other studies show us must be examined under a historical, theological, and pastoral lens. Again, I am not anti-sociology (In fact, these days about every third book I read is somewhere in the field of religious sociology). But I contend that evangelical theologians, pastors, and other church leaders need to be a bit more discerning. They might be better served to select different works than a lot of the popularized literature out now. I would commend works such as Culture Wars, The Gravedigger File, and No Place for Truth. May we be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves in understanding the times and reaching the lost.

*David F. Wells does this as well as anyone.