Barna shakes things up again

I’ve always had a soft spot for The Barna Group, an organization founded by researcher George Barna to gather accurate information about American religious beliefs and practices. Barna has been a somewhat controversial figure in the church for some decades, mostly because the data he gathers ruffles feathers. His research, for example, indicates that behavioral differences between Christians and non-Christians are essentially nonexistent.

Barna’s perspective is also unrepentantly evangelical in nature. Not evangelistic, mind you, but evangelical. He tracks how many Americans self-select as ‘Christian’ versus ‘Born again’, for example, but he determines who’s Evangelical using a series of specific theological litmus tests about the inerrancy of Scripture, the nature of sin, the existence of Satan, and so on. It can easily lead to “Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics” scenarios — if 85% of the country self-selects as ‘Christian’ but only 7% believe doctrines you think are essential parts of Christianity, does that mean Christians are the majority, or a minority? Barna generally avoids those kinds of questions, focusing instead on the idea that Christians should have their eyes open to the reality of belief and behavior.

This brings us to unChristian, the latest book by the Barna Group. Ten years ago, 85% of non-Christians had a favorable impression of Christianity and its role in culture. Today, that number’s down to %16. When asked about Evangelicals in particular, only 3% had a favorable impression. The book’s stated purpose is to explore the details of this massive shift in perception and explore how the church can change it. Its title refers both to those outside the church — “unChristians” — and the “unChristian” behavior of believers that the authors feel sours outsiders’ perceptions of Christianity.

unChristian is written to Evangelical Christians, not to those outsiders, and while it never threatens any sacred theological cows, it is unflinching in its analysis of why the next generation of Americans dislikes Christianity. The authors put quite a bit of work into disassembling common Christian stereotypes about “unbelievers.” Are people unwilling to adhere to strict moral standards, for example? No. Most people don’t even see Christians adhering to those strict standards, they just feel that the Church is made of uncaring, unfriendly people who value conversions more than real connection. Do people think badly of Christianity because liberals in Hollywood always make Christians look silly in movies? No. The vast majority of ‘outsiders’ — self-declared non-Christians — have attended church, have had relationships with Christians, and do understand the basic tenets of the faith. Their decisions are based on their firsthand experiences. The book is filled with interviews, survey data, and analysis to back up most of those statements, and the hard look at how Christianity is experienced by ‘outsiders’ is probably its most valuable contribution.

The book is frustrating, though, in part because of its laser-focus on public perceptions and ways the Church should work to overcome those perceptions. As I mentioned earlier, it’s unrepentant in its Evangelical perspective. Much concern is expressed about the “hijacking” of Jesus by wishy-washy schools of theology, appealing to non-Christians by watering down the gospel. In reality, though, “watered down” just means “not Evangelical.” No thought is given to the idea that Evangelical conceptions of Christ and Christianity are as much a ‘hijacking’ as the schools that differ from it.

The chapter on Christianity and Homosexuality makes this perspective especially clear. The idea that Christians are “anti-homosexual” is discussed at length, and there’s a degree of honesty in the authors’ willingness to explore how gays, lesbians, and bisexuals are really treated by mainline Christians. Is it honest, though, to say that calling Christianity “anti-homosexuality” is inaccurate while also claiming that homosexuality is an unacceptable sin? The distinction between ‘loving the sinner’ and ‘condemning the sin’ is subtle, obviously, but the solution conservative Evangelical theology offers to homosexuals is don’t be a homosexual.

Essays by various Christian writers are scattered between chapters, and while some are interesting, their only contribution seems to be a more personal flavor. Especially ironic are the numerous mini-essays by Chuck Colson, one of the long-time hatchetmen of conservative evangelical politics. The rise of hyper-politicized conservative religious politics is cited in the book as a serious complaint by many of the un-Christians interviewed. It doesn’t mesh well with Colson’s presence, but it’s likely that unChristian’s target audience won’t catch that detail.

In the end, the book isn’t about theology or belief. It’s about convincing Christians that they are giving Christianity a bad name, and discussing how the PR damage can be undone. Its focus on convincing Evangelicals to swallow a bitter pill leads to a lot of “Of course, we still believe X…” statements to reassure its readers. This theme of Evangelical thought and theology as the standard of authenticity and accuracy is understandable, but in the end disappointing. It’s one branch of ideology in a very crowded tree that’s grown over 2000 of theological evolution, and an acknowledgment of that that fact would be nice.

The Barna Group’s books tend to be more important for the facts they establish (47% of Christians believe evangelicals are too active in politics, say) than the specific arguments they advance. I think unChristian will be similar. It’s an eye-opener for Evangelicals who’ve lived in a bubble of like-minded believers, and a confirmation of what others have understood for quite a while.