It's Time for A New Evangelical Movement

The Case For a Reformed, Liturgical, Charismatic, and Discipleship-Oriented Church

Welcome to Church and State! This week I am writing about the future of the American church. This is a big undertaking and I know that God will work in unforeseen ways in the future. What I lay out, however, is a view of the church that I think will best fit our cultural moment. As always, if you enjoy the work, please consider hitting the SUBSCRIBE button and sharing with a friend!

---

A few days ago, the Atlantic ran a story about the Catholic Bishop Robert Barron. The article highlights Barron’s belief that an anti-intellectual church set on accommodating the culture is a recipe for disaster. Barron, who is one of the many social media personalities fueling Catholicism’s growth with young men, is an interesting figure for our cultural moment. Barron, who joined the priesthood in 1986, has had a long career as an intellectual. He taught systematic theology at a Catholic seminary, served as a visiting professor at Notre Dame, and most recently has served as a Bishop of the Catholic Church in Minnesota. His Internet following is immense and he has become the public face of Catholicism in North America. He hosts a weekly podcast, is popular on YouTube, and has been a guest on Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson’s podcast. His variety of Catholicism is conservative, orthodox, and unafraid to engage with cultural issues.

The vision Barron offers the culture is a popular one today. Barron recognizes that the mood of many young men right now is a particular intrigue with conservative ideas. Barron, and many others, build off of this trend to offer something deeper than political persuasion. In many ways, this is the approach I have tried to take in this Substack. Along with building upon conservative trends, Barron sees the need for historic Catholic faith in our moment. The article on Barron is part of a larger narrative in American Christianity. If the 90’s were the decade of the megachurch, and past decade or so has been the era of young church-plants, we now live in the era of tradition. The problem, however, is trying to figure out just how large a movement this “traditional” resurgence actually is. Although I know quite a few young men that are interested in liturgical churches, I know only a few who have actually converted to Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. What’s more, the largest and most vibrant college ministries in my city are at large Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Although I know that my city of Columbia, SC is a small sampling, I am aware of the success of Jon Tyson’s church in NYC and numerous Pentecostal churches in my hometown area outside of Boston that draw young people in large numbers. Sometimes, I wonder how much of this “traditional” resurgence is really limited to academics who are the loudest voices on YouTube and social media.

Switching Loyalities

In some cases, conservatives looking for historical depth have made their way to Catholicism. In other cases, disenchanted Protestants have fled to Rome, particularly those who grew up in large mega-church culture. While Rome is trending online and a very real interest has emerged with the Orthodox Church, I’m not convinced this moment will last. Even in the short time I have been a Christian (since 2012), I have seen young Christians embrace Piper’s brand, Keller’s brand, Comer’s brand, Driscoll’s brand, Chandler’s brand, Francis Chan’s brand, Hillsong’s brand, and many others. I do not use the word “brand” flippantly, many of those men I respect, it is just the best word to describe the way people flock to a particular teacher in North America. Even the current fascination with Orthodox Christianity strikes me as a familiar attempt at finding something that is missing in the American church. The American church is shallow, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are old and therefore considered deep. Ten years ago, the American church was complacent, and therefore they needed to be Radical like David Platt. The question that needs to be asked is why so many American Christians are unfulfilled?

I think much of the blame with American Christianity is that it is not well-rounded. Evangelicalism, as a movement, has always been a populist-type approach that tried to meet the needs of society. This is not wrong, but it is not enough. Rather than focusing on meeting the needs of society at a cultural moment, evangelicalism would be better off meeting the needs of human beings as they exist across time and space. It is for this reason that I believe the best way forward is an American church that embraces all of the very best of Christianity (in my opinion). Therefore, I am arguing that a Reformed, Liturgical, Charismatic, and Discipleship-oriented church is the best way forward. I’ll go through each one in making my case.

Reformed

The Reformed faith has served a lifeline to many in times of suffering. I use the word Reformed loosely, maybe a better word would be Calvinistic. Although the doctrines of predestination and election have been debated throughout history, I believe that these are some of the most important doctrines in the church. The reason for their importance is that life is hard and the call on our lives as Christians is to persevere. When bad things happen, there are only three options to make sense of what occurred. One option is to assume that everything happens by chance and that suffering is merely random. While this is often how it appears, there are two problems with this approach. The first is that it is extremely unbiblical. There is no indication that God is not in control of the world in the Scriptures. Secondly, this belief can lead to a sense of nihilism that is dangerous to the human soul. Particularly in deep suffering, humans need something to hold onto and God’s sovereignty is a strong lifeline to grab onto as the waves of suffering crash into us.

The second option is to assume that God is in control but He simply cannot do anything about the suffering. Maybe it is the work of Satan alone? Maybe it is the sinful fallen world that God allows to inflict pain on people? The book of Job tells us another story. In the beginning of the narrative, when Satan approaches God, he asks Him if he can inflict suffering on Job. God allows the suffering, but tells Satan he cannot kill him. Because of this, the third option is best. God controls all things and works them for our good, even suffering. Calvinism is needed for our world because the world is scary and unruly and we need to understand that someone is navigating us through the pain and tumult.

There are many other reasons that I believe a Calvinistic approach is best for North American Christianity. Calvinism makes us feel smaller, it allows us to do our best with evangelism and preaching and leave the rest to God, and most important, I believe it is Biblical. While this cannot be a doctrine used to split apart churches and Christians, I do think it would be the most helpful perspective for the church turning over a new leaf. After all, many of the great revivals in history were rooted in a deep Calvinistic doctrine. Edwards’s and Whitfield’s Great Awakening, the Calvinistic Methodist Revival in Wales, the Reformation, etc. I understand other traditions, but I believe Calvinism is the best approach for the perseverance needed in our lives.

Liturgy

The second thing that the American church needs is a liturgical approach. One of the big questions that many young people are asking is one of history. Young folks want to feel as though they are part of something ancient and stable. Obviously, the Catholic Church has the claim to being the oldest (although this is nuanced), but the church calendar is a way for modern people to be rooted in historic Christianity. By following the church calendar, Christians can establish rhythms of rest and work that are countercultural to our larger society. In many ways, this is attractive to young people who are particularly concerned about work/life balance. Christian liturgy, particularly the calendar, allows for a lifelong sustainable rhythm to counter the frantic capitalistic nature of North American society.

Charismatic

The third thing that the American church needs is a charismatic element. I do not mean that churches should all speak in tongues or run laps around the sanctuary during service, but I do think that the church needs to recover a belief that God is working and will work in supernatural ways. Churches must pray for healing, they must call the elders to anoint the sick with oil, they must ask for a move of the Spirit, and they must expect more than an intellectual experience with the Word of God. While much of the interest in different types of Christianity on YouTube is intellectual, more is needed for life-long discipleship. If Christianity is just an idea, it will be discarded when something new comes along.

It is important that I clarify what I mean when I say charismatic. There are many Christians who hold to cessasionist beliefs that are doing the very things I am advocating for in the church. I remember reading a book a few years ago by Presbyterian pastor Sinclair Ferguson who wrote about the need for a work of the Spirit in the pulpit. The word he used was “unction.” For this reason, it is not essential that the church is continuationist (the gifts of the Spirit in the NT for individuals continue today), but we must believe the Spirit will work and is working in our midst. Modern North American life needs transcendent and the work of the Spirit is the medicine needed.

Strategic Discipleship

The final element that I am advocating for is purposeful discipleship. One of the things that most churches lack today is any real strategy for making disciples. What is needed is a clear system like the one John Wesley instituted in England during the Methodist revival. Wesley instituted small groups or “class meetings,” to focus on Bible study, prayer, and encouragement. The time was structured and a main element was repentance of sin. Groups of ten to twelve people met weekly, and when the study grew, a new one was started by one of its members. As time went on and the movement multiplied, more and more people knew Christ and a revival broke out. It was a simple strategy, but it was powerful. Most likely, this is because it followed the model of ministry Jesus practiced.

It has always seemed odd that this type of system is not instituted by all churches. Many, including my church work this way, but it feels as though often times the work of discipleship is neglected. To reach the masses, which we should want to do if we believe the gospel, a plan must be instituted to take the gospel forward. I cannot think of any better way to do this than small groups that multiply across the continent that are tied to a local church.

In some ways, this approach may be idealistic. God has worked in many ways throughout the years in systems much different than this. Billy Graham’s Crusades were effective, despite the fact that they were not tied to the local church. The “Jesus People” movement of the 1960’s and 70’s was incredible, but it was not Calvinistic. Many of the largest movement were not liturgical and often times there was not a real plan until after the revival began. With this being said, each revival was fit for the times. Today, our culture is in a unique spot and I think that the elements laid out would provide a good structure for the church’s success. Obviously, there are many other elements that would help. In a recent work, Ross Byrd wrote persuasively about the need for local parishes. I found this helpful and I think this would be a wonderful recovery for the American church. Others have written about the need for beauty, and the importance of the sacraments. All of these I agree with and hope they will be instituted by mission-minded churches. It seems to me that America is primed for a revival of sorts, it will be interesting to watch what happens in the coming years.