"None"

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life regularly surveys the "religious affiliation" of Americans. One of the options available is "none." As it turns out, that option represents the fastest growing religious demographic, a fact causing considerable conern if not alarm in the American church. In 2005, 15% of respondents identified themselves as "nones." By 2010, that had increased to 20% (32% of those under the age of 30). However, this growing group of Americans are not simply atheists: 68% say they believe in God, 37% say they are "spiritual but not religious," and 21% say they pray every day.

It very much reminds me of the time when many members of my generation were deciding to follow Jesus in the late '60s. We were very clear in saying that our decision reflected a commitment to "relationship" with God through Christ and not to "religion." I wonder if a lot of us might not have answered "none" to the Pew questionnaire for that reason.

Living in the very relgious American southeast I have once again been reflecting on the difference between religion and a dynamic, transformational relation with God. When you live in a place where Christianity (in fact, evangelical, revivalistic Christianity) is part of the cultural DNA, it affords a significant opportunity to observe how deeply faith goes in determining people's perspectivs, values, attitudes, and life choices. No matter where you live, the difference between religion and relationship with God can be easily seen.

In fact, it was the key issue between Jesus and the Pharisees in the New Testament. I have always been impressed with the reason why Jesus chose his disciples. "He appointed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons" (Mark 3:14-15). Jesus had three goals for his followers: (1) To be with him, to be his companions, for relationship; (2) to preach, to announce the Good News of the Kingdom that had come with the coming of Jesus; and (3) to have authority, to share with Jesus in the authoritative work of the Kingdom. Notice that the first reason was all about relationship. In fact, it can be said (in the light of Genesis 1-3) that God's first reason for creating human beings was to have a creation that could freely respond to, return, and share his love. 

With the rapid increase in "nones" maybe it's time we took another look at this issue.

Moralism v. Grace. It was C. S. Lewis who opined that "grace" was the most distinctive idea in Christian faith. "Moralism" is a more logical view of life. It claims that there are clear moral scales in the universe, a moral order with moral consequences. With "evil" on one side and "good" on the other, the scales tip based on a simple system of behavior and rewards. Too much "bad" behavior will always result in a negative consequence. Just the right amount of "good" behavior guarantees a good result. Job's "comforters" were arguing based on this traditional view of life. In fact, I think moralism is hard-wired into the human psyche. "Grace" begins with the understanding that all humans are "bad" and that only God is "good." Therefore, the only possibility of a good reward is God's unmerited favor. The Good News declares that God's favor has been made available to all human beings as a result of the coming and work of Jesus. Therefore, it is only a right relationship with God through Christ that can result in God's favor and blessing. No amount of positive human accomplishment can ever "earn" God's favor. God is not impressed! And there are no "brownie points." And the power of God's grace is the power to transform us from the inside out, to make us more like Jesus.

Exclusion vs. Inclusion. A system of moralism logically leads to a system of comparison, seeking to show that some are better or superior to others. Those who are worse or inferior are to be rejected and excluded. In fact, if we are members of the "in crowd," having established our superiority, excluding the "other" serves to reinforce our sense of special designation and destiny. As my old teacher Kevin Conner used to say, we want to feel we are "the select of the elect" (said with an Australian accent). It's only natural that those on the inside conclude that God is also about excluding those who are not good enough, those who are "outside." In fact, some have concluded that God is looking for reasons to exclude as many as possible from his family. On the other hand, Jesus came to invite everyone to his banquet hall, to heal the sick, to serve and not to be served, to specifically include those society had excluded. The irony was that Jesus saw everyone as sick and blind; but only those who fully understood their blindness and their need for God's enlightenment were candidates for a kingdom cure. In fact, I get the impression from Jesus that the Father is looking for reasons to include folks in his eternal family. You can reject God, but God will not reject you. A church that preaches (and practices) a gospel of superiority and rejection, of exclusion, is representing human-based religion and not a passion to walk in a relationship with God through Christ. It's also true that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. A consistent, conscious decision to reject relationship with God, to decide to not make a home with God, is a decision we will eventaully regret.

Enclave vs. Embassy. I have spent all of my adult life and ministry reflecting on the nature of the church Jesus is building. Cultural Christianity is seen most clearly in our Sunday morning gatherings. To be honest, for most people a local church is a religious social club, a place where we can feel safe "with others like you." However, Jesus has called his followers to be his royal ambassadores, his official representatives in the world. The difference between an "enclave" and an "embassy" comes to mind. An "enclave" is "a country or district surrounded by the territory of another country; an isolated territory." The verb simply means "to isolate or enclose." An enclave builds walls around it to protect and keep its citizens save and untarnished by the outside world. On the other hand, an "embassy" is "a diplomatic mission; a group of people from one organization being represented in another; an ambassador and his/her entourage." An embassy exists to represent the rule of another in a foreign land. It seeks to be an influence and to build bridges of relationship to the surrounding citizens. As Christ's ambassadors, we are called to send embassys, not build enclaves. Unfortunately, the vast majority of American local churches are enclaves, competing with other enclaves for its citizens while protecting themselves from the world. I contend that this vision of the church has nothing to do with the church as defined in the New Testament. It is not the church Jesus is building.

Unfortunately, so many of our "nones," including those who are clearly committed Jesus followers, have so given up on the institution of the American church that they have ceased any participation in Jesus' kingdom community. They have completely given up on the vision that committed, connected followers of Jesus can be agents of redemption and transformation in the world. At the same time, some of our youngest "Jesus freaks" are exploring new expressions of Jesus's community, and are once again serving as salt, light and leaven in our world. Dropping out is not our only alterantive. It is still possible to join with Jesus and his community in a realization of his "kingdom coming" and his "will being done...on earth as it is in heaven." It's still possible that the best is yet to come!