The Challenge of Independent Christianity (part II)
Part I is here.
Sherry's note:
As I begin to describe the movement of Independent Christianity, I need to make a few things very clear. NONE of the staff or teachers of the Catherine of Siena Institute have ever been or are part of the “Independent Christian” movement! Nor have any of our posters on ID ever been part of it (as far as we know).
I am writing about this movement as a journalist, not an apologist. I am describing the second largest, fastest growing, and most missionary-minded Christian community in the world today because we have to recognize their existence in order to deal with them.
As a journalist, my job is to try and help you grasp the nature and significance of the movement. Since Independent Christianity is complicated to describe, I will spend most of my time describing and secondarily exploring some of the implications for the Catholic Church. I will not be spending my time in a detailed analysis and rebuttal of their many theological problems, not because I agree with their stance but because it would require another 20,000 words to do so and this is long enough as it is!
The Basics About Independent Christianity
Dr. David Barrett is the foremost expert in the world on the status of global Christianity and editor of the massive 2001 edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia published by Oxford University Press. He divides the contemporary Christian world into six ecclesial traditions or what he calls “Christian megablocs”. Five of these blocs are familiar historic groups: Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism, and what Barrett calls “Marginal Christians”; a bloc that would include groups like the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The sixth bloc is a 20th century phenomena that goes by the name of “post-denominationalist Independent”. This new kid on the block is already a major player. As of mid-2007, Barrett estimates that Independent Christians number 437.7 million, or roughly 20% of all the Christians in the world. (The updated mid-2007 figures that I will be quoting are available online at Status of Global Mission, 2007 in the Context of the 20th and 21st Centuries (hereafter SGM), http://www.gordonconwell.edu/ockenga/globalchristianity/resources.php.) If Barrett’s figures are close enough for government work, Independent Christianity is second in size only to Roman Catholicism. It is larger than all historic Protestant groups (excluding Anglicanism) combined, twice the size of Orthodoxy, and over five times larger than the entire Anglican communion.
Independent Christianity is growing faster than Islam. Independents constituted only 1.4% of world Christianity in 1900. By 2050, Barrett estimates they will make up nearly 25% of all Christians and 8.5% of the world’s population. In 2007, the Catholic Church showed a minimal growth rate of 1.14%, while Islam’s annual growth was 1.81%. Independent Christianity led the way with an annual growth rate of 2.12 % - nearly double that of Catholicism. (SGM)
None of this is surprising in light of Independent Christians’ passionate commitment to proclaiming Christ – to the baptized and non-baptized alike. As a group, Independents are what Barrett calls “Great Commission” Christians. That is, they hold that mandate of Christ to evangelize, baptize, and disciple all nations is still valid and is the central mission of the Church. (According to the SGM, 703 million or 32% of all Christians in 2007 were “Great Commission Christians”.). The five nations with the largest numbers of Independents in 2005 are China, the United States, India, Nigeria, and Brazil. According to Barrett, 52% of Asian Christians, 30% of North American Christians, 22% of African Christians, and 7.3% of Latin Christians are part of the Independent movement.
In light of its global size and dynamism, you would think that “Independent” Christianity would register on the Catholic ecclesial radar. One reason it does not is that this post-denominational Christianity has only been recognized as a unique movement in the past 20 years. It is so new that it can be easily dismissed by the historically-minded as yet another fly-by-night “sect”. Granted that the word “church” has a very specific meaning in Catholic thought, this does not mean that “sect” is an adequate label for Christian communities who do not qualify as churches. This word tells the listener nothing and gives the strong impression that the group in question is too marginal to be taken seriously. In any case, the term “sect” is manifestly inadequate to describe a movement that is 437 million strong.
A second reason we may overlook Independent Christianity is that it is a development from within evangelicalism that intentionally leaves historic Protestant practice far behind. They are therefore not an obvious partner for the sort of ecumenical dialogue we are familiar with that engages traditional Protestant denominations.
A third reason is that the Independent movement is not structured in standard ways. Most Independent Christians are part of loosely affiliated “apostolic networks” held together by personal relationships, a common charismatic spirituality, and a joint commitment to proclaiming Christ. Barrett estimates that there were about 22,000 such networks or para-denominations in existence in 2000 involving 1.7 million congregations.
The fourth and most critical reason is that Independent Christianity is nearly devoid of and completely uninterested in the marks of the Church that are so central to Catholic ecclesiology: historic, apostolic, creedal, and sacramental. The movement is almost a perfect antitype; it is a-historical, anti-hierarchical, anti-intellectual, and non-sacramental. It is also massively “pentecostalized” in spirituality and ecclesiology.
There has been considerable debate about appropriate names for the movement within the movement itself. Peter Wagner, who has played a central role as journalist, networker, teacher, and leader, examined and rejected 60 different possible names. (Churchquake!, p. 38). There were leaders who objected to “post-denominational” because some churches involved are still active members of their historic denominations. Wagner now uses the term “New Apostolic Reformation” to connote the same group that Barrett calls “Independents.” A third term that is sometimes used is “neo-charismatic” (Barrett) or “Third Wave” (Wagner) meaning a person, church, or network that embraces Pentecostal/charismatic style spirituality but is not connected to a mainline or Pentecostal denomination. These alternative terms: Independent, post-denominationalist, New Apostolic Reformation, and neo-charismatic/Third Wave all reflect important qualities of this new bloc of Christians.
Click here to jump to Part III.

8 Comments:
I am not trying to be insulting, but I probably will come off that way. But I am curious. How is this different than say, if an early Christian heretical group had taken off like wildfire and grew like these independent Christian churches?
I have worked with a few nondenominational Christians. They have all been vocally anti-Catholic. Two of them I know regularly go to Latin America on mission trips.
I read a couple of newspaper articles that quoted evangelical pastors. One was quoted as saying "tradition is what nailed Christ to the cross." The other said something similar. To me, this all means they ARE protestant, though they don't consider themselves such.
What do you think the future holds? The denominational churches will eventually disappear? Will Catholic numbers begin to fall? Will the Sacraments become less important to Christians? Or will the Catholics become more devout, even if they become smaller in number?
What should the average Catholic think, or do? The independent churches I know of are very aggressive in their marketing, and use youth centers, video games, etc., whatever it takes to attract members. Why do Catholics sometimes give up the Eucharist for these secular trappings?
This is very interesting. It's analogous to those who call themselves "spiritual," but who reject any identification with a church because of its doctrinal or ethical demands that flow out of conversion.
And yes, Fr. Fones, if one only assents intellectually, one can, of course, justify all kinds of "horrid" things. But people who only assent emotionally can do the same thing without the refinement and searching questions of the mind. It's not news that assent is both from the mind and the heart, but it must always be both (CCC #159, 1430, 1888, 2559, 2705), because we are not only sensible beings, but rational beings.
The question I have is: what is the upside for preaching Jesus Christ without the "baggage" of Catholic doctrine? Sooner or later, if you wih to convert these "independent Christians," you will have to come to grips with Catholic doctrine and the fact of the Church, especially as the Catechism states:
"Christ and his Church thus together make up the "whole Christ" (Christus totus). The Church is one with Christ (CCC #795)." As St. Gregory the Great put it: "Our redeemer has shown himself to be one person with the holy Church whom he has taken to himself" (Pope St. Gregory the Great. Moralia in Job, praef., 14: PL 75, 525A)."
Clearly, this is the testimony of St. Paul, the Fathers, Thomas Aquinas, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The divorce of Christ from the Church and the total "independence" of these latter Christians of our own day really doesn't provide a workable model from which to derive evangelization.
This is only early stages and I've haven't been able to get to some of the issues you've raised. The article is so long that there will be something like 11 installments!
We do need to note that some of the leaders of the movement are highly educated. Peter Wagner has 3 Master's (including an MDiv) and a PhD, for instance. So it isn't that they don't know anything about Church history but they still don't value it or hold it as normative in the way that Catholics do. I'll go into that dynamic in some detail later.
You may consider them Protestant at your leisure - I'm trying to explain to you how *they understand themselves.* And they think of themselves of "post-Protestant" and actively repudiate a number of classic Protestant assumptions and practices. I will cover that in more detail later as well.
Thank you, Sherry. This really is very interesting indeed.
In fact, I enjoy this blog a great deal. In MY opinion, it is a "must-read."
Julie, anonymous, and all you other readers -
I've read Sherry's article, and it is very interesting, and, I believe, important for us to know of this movement. We cannot ignore a movement that is taking some Catholics away from the Church.
Sherry - and the rest of us at the Institute - are not proposing we adopt their methods, jettison Tradition, Sacraments, doctrine, or anything like that. It's perhaps a little unwieldy offering it piecemeal, since it's tempting to weigh in before getting the whole picture.
Rather than only critiquing the movement itself, it might be more fruitful to ask ourselves how we might more effectively call one another to ongoing conversion and formation, help each other understand more of the treasures of the faith, and how we can present Christ and His Church to those who do not yet believe in more effective ways.
Fr. Fones, yes that is the question. But short of jettisoning all the "inconvenient" aspects of Roman Catholicism, how do you propose that this be done? "Independent Christianity" is basically "Christianity-lite." I'm not denigrating healings and such, and, yes, I've read Acts (several times). Pentecostals believe in glossolalia (and, yes, I know there were such traditions attested in New Testament times). But a Christianity that is so generic ultimately offers very little to its adherents. Pentecostals are famous for lacking anything resembling a Church or a Tradition or a guarantee of authority.
What I don't understand is where you draw the line. You've just said you don't want to mimic their method or jettison Church teachings. So what is it that you get out of studying a movement like this, other than information? If you're not going to give away the store, then you're not going to gain all the adherents you want, because Roman Catholicism is a demanding faith. And the conversion stage is not a moment, bu is lifelong.
I happen to follow Benedictine spirituality. I'm not a Benedictine myself, but I find the notion of a narrow way, but one that is reinforced continually (this is also true of Augustinians, the Victorines, St. Bonaventura, etc.), with perseverence, but with compassion, better than an "in your face" type of proclamation.
What I don't find useful is to spotlight every deficiency of Catholics (their parishes are bad, they don't pray as well as those of other religions, they aren't as evangelical, etc.), to the detriment of the Church as a whole. If you're trying to build up the Body of Christ and to highlight the treasures of the Church, it might be useful to consider this as well. I find it difficult to believe that every evangelical Christian is as fervent as I've heard or that every practicing Catholic is as laggard. And perhaps the people you identify as lacking may be saints, in fact. You never know.
What I don't understand is where you draw the line. You've just said you don't want to mimic their method or jettison Church teachings. So what is it that you get out of studying a movement like this, other than information?
Anonymous:
You mean beside the fact that millions and millions of Catholics around the world are part of this movement or are being formed or heavily influenced by it?????
Why? Because if they are the second largest and fast spreading form of Christianity in the world - and we don't even recognize they exist, we are being blind-slided in all kinds of areas, some of which I will talk about - in a later installment.
I will get to the implications for some areas of Catholics life - such as missionary work and ecumenism and lay formation - but thats later in the series. Right now, I'm just describing the movement.
As to where do you draw the line? Simple - by staying with the balance of magisterial teaching. Which we do meticulously. As St. Ireneus observed at the time of the Montanist controversy:
"They are truly unfortunate who, realizing there are false prophets, take this as a pretext for expelling the grace of prophecy from the Church." (Against the Heresies)
As I sum it up at the end of article:
"Independent Christians can only envision a world in which the institutional and the charismatic are opposed to one another. In this, as in so many other areas, magisterial teaching demands that Catholics teach, live, and model a more sophisticated balance.
As the Holy Father, John Paul II, proclaimed at the Pentecost, 1998 gathering of the new lay movements “The institutional and charismatic aspects are co-essential as it were to the Church's constitution. They contribute, although differently, to the life, renewal and sanctification of God's people.”
You want miracles? Ever heard of Padre Pio? Visions? Let me introduce you to Catherine of Siena. Raising the dead? Old news. John Wimber had nothing on Dominic Guzman, that cutting edge 13th century evangelist who regularly saw signs and wonders accompany his ministry.
It’s a false reading of history to believe that it is “either-or”. As Pope John Paul II put it “True charisms cannot but aim at the encounter with Christ in the sacraments.”
Go on, Sherry - preach! Tell the truth, now! ;^D
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Seriously, you're spot-on in your comment above. FYI, from 1992-1997 (before I became a Catholic in 1999), I was part of an independent charismatic "house-church" network, having been raised Baptist and wandered through Congregational, Evangelical, and Free Methodist expressions of Christianity. I'm well acquainted with all the characteristics you mention. (I won't go into gory details of how I left the group - y'all can go to Steve Ray's site and read my conversion story there.)
Curently I have some good friends in an Emerging Church group here in Portland, and there's one aspect of their spirituality that I find fascinating: They're desperately trying to reconnect the dots regarding the Church's relationship to art and artistic endeavor. Sometimes they get close enough through their studies to get to the edge of the deep well we know as sacramental theology; they end up dancing around its edge because they can't accept any outside authority telling them what these things are, what these things mean, though they're struck to heartbreak by their beauty.
The strong postmodernist emphasis, which exerts great force on their mission statements and biblical exegesis, sadly limits and stops their thinking just short of entertaining the thought, "What if... what if it was all real? What if God could really be there objectively in the bread and wine? What if it wasn't just a symbol - what if something was really happening, and it didn't all depend on just my own faith, my own meaning that I put into it?"
This points up the way in which our culture, with its lack of belief in ultimate truth apprehendable by right reason, fights against these good-hearted baptized Christians who are trying to see and follow Jesus Christ the best they can. Unlike us, they don't have (or can't see) the benefit of tradition, liturgy, and the guidance of the Magisterium - but rather than condemning them, we should be filled with wonder at God's grace that they love Christ as much as they do, and do all we can to engage them and make them aware of the spiritual resources that are available to them as baptized members of the One Church.
I'm glad you're doing this, Sherry. We need to get to know these folks and start the conversation in earnest, because these are the folks that will be in the social trenches with us when the denominations finally fade away...
Post a Comment
<< Home