The Backward Church

The Future Church: Ministry in a Post-Seeker Age
By Jim L. Wilson
Serendipity House

Jim Wilson attempts to define the "Future Church," in this book as more innovative than the contemporary church. It seeks to "be relevant to the post-seeker age as the contemporary church was to the seeker era." These definitions are, at best, question begging. What is "post-seeker," after all, and how did we get there? When, exactly, did we leave the "seeker-sensitive" era? Why is the future church better than the contemporary church? What exactly is the contemporary church and why is it inferior to the future church besides it being less "relevant?" Wilson doesn’t bother going into such details. It leaves the reader scratching his head and only assures confusion and even suspicion. This is because its title is a false start. We still don’t know what the future looks like, no matter what "futurists" say. The American Heritage dictionary defines future as the "indefinite time yet to come," indefinite meaning uncertain or unclear. It is unfortunate for Wilson that the forward to his book sheds no light on this problem but further muddies it. Sally Morgenthaler, in the forward, writes: "The Future Church is already here, in seminal form, but here." The qualifier "seminal" feels awkward and uninspired in the context of her piece. She writes things like "what will be in five or ten years is uncertain but we will be well to take notice. " Well, why gush that "the future church" is here in the first place? It’s like Paul Revere making his midnight crossing saying, "The British are coming, the British are coming!" followed by "well, they are coming in theory" and then "well, I am not sure they are coming but we would be wise to take heed because they might come." Worse for her readers, Morgenthaler furthers her argument for the future church with ham-handed prose. She writes: "The new church is here, it came imperceptibly, like a waft of first spring musk at the tired edge of winter; barely distinguishable, yet blowing into the subconscious a sense of much longed for visitation." You can see creative writing professors everywhere sinking in their chairs. (It is odd that a movement that boasts "futurists" and "seers" would feature such dreadful writers.) Ultimately, Jim Wilson fails to convince the reader that such a future church exists or that it even matters. Instead he allows assertion, contradictory information, and lazy research to punctuate his arguments.

Wilson opens his second chapter with some seriously confused assertions: "conventional wisdom says one religion is as good as another." If conventional wisdom actually does say that (although that point is arguable), since when have Christians been encouraged to trust the philosophical smog of our culture? If a writer or thinker equates Christianity with, say, Islam, by saying it is "as good," shouldn’t it be expected of Christians to explain the differences? No such explanation is given here. And here’s how Wilson completes the sub-heading: "Gurus, mystics, and psychics are as legitimate as priests, rabbis, and ministers in today’s super-charged spiritual environment." What? No they are not. Dennis Prager, a conservative Jew, hosted a radio program that for years featured religious leaders. He gave countless airtime and had vigorous discussions with Christian ministers but rarely if ever featured psychics or "mystics" on his show. Though I am not a fan of Larry King, his show has featured Christians such as Rick Warren and James Dobson in serious discussions. He has had psychics like Sylvia Browne on his show, but didn’t seem to take her claims all that seriously. Not even the most cynical atheist gives psychics the same benefit of credibility as ministers and rabbis. Christopher Hitchens’s recent book "god is not Great" and Richard Dawkins’s "The God Illusion" excoriate Christianity for sure, but they don’t devote much space to psychics, "gurus," or tea leaf readers. Spiritual hacks such as these are ignored and even laughed at. They are not considered "legitimate." You would think that this movement of futurists in tune with our culture would at least find the time to get in touch with what is actually going on in the culture.

By way of example of a future church, Erwin McManus gets top billing. But why is Erwin McManus’s Mosaic church considered a future church? Well, for one reason, because Erwin said it was. For readers who have been following the recent controversy regarding his church, Erwin’s word just isn’t good enough. Wilson also offers this tour of Mosaic: "hanging from the ceiling was one of those Saturday Night Fever film reflector balls …most of the 300-plus in attendance sat on the chairs on the dance floor…Mosaic services are definitely in the 21st century. The music ranges from Santana smooth to urban alternative…worship leaders weave drama, dance, and MTV-style video clips into the texture of the service." Walking through this "future church" with Jim Wilson feels like a time warp. Just reading it makes me want to break out my polyester jumpsuit with matching platform shoes. Saturday Night Fever, after all, was released in 1977. Carlos Santana is a 70’s era dinosaur who experienced a brief career resurgence in the mid-nineties. And non-Christians who experience a service with "MTV-style video clips" find it unpleasant and dated. Describing a service where people sit on a dance floor isn’t futurist. It’s logistics. And just repeating the word "future" or writing "21st century" when mentioning Mosaic does not make it so.

Wilson does himself no favors by quoting George Barna to bolster his argument. Barna shows research that contradicts the idea that a church like Mosaic could call itself futurist, let alone contemporary. Certainly Mosaic would not resonate with the unchurched. Barna explains that the unchurched view "the ideal church size to be between one hundred to two hundred people; that they prefer traditional hymns with contemporary instruments and arrangements; that they don’t expect the church to put on a show for them." By those criteria, Mosaic church has gone 0 for 3. They struck out with the unchurched but they will continue to get fawning coverage from this self-congratulating club of futurists. Why let facts get in the way of the legend?