New Study on "The Evangelical Pattern"

[MelodyJane]

This was my first time hearing about the "evangelical pattern". Have you heard about this before? What do you think of this article? Apparently MIT did a study on good epidemics and said:

"The research showed three different ways beneficial epidemics spread, and one of them was so similar to the way social movements and religions spread, that they named it the “evangelical pattern.” In the evangelical pattern, those involved actively seek to recruit others, thereby increasing the movement’s size. The research found that the evangelical pattern spread much faster than the exponential path which leads to a normal epidemic’s explosive growth. “That’s because as the number of susceptibles becomes smaller, the number of individuals trying to infect them gets higher” says the MIT Technology Review. “The result is super-exponential growth.”"

 

[faroukfarouk]

This was my first time hearing about the "evangelical pattern". Have you heard about this before? What do you think of this article? Apparently MIT did a study on good epidemics and said:

"The research showed three different ways beneficial epidemics spread, and one of them was so similar to the way social movements and religions spread, that they named it the “evangelical pattern.” In the evangelical pattern, those involved actively seek to recruit others, thereby increasing the movement’s size. The research found that the evangelical pattern spread much faster than the exponential path which leads to a normal epidemic’s explosive growth. “That’s because as the number of susceptibles becomes smaller, the number of individuals trying to infect them gets higher” says the MIT Technology Review. “The result is super-exponential growth.”"

Whatever academic gloss may be rationally put on such statistics, in the end we need to remember that it's the work of the Holy Spirit to bring about the new birth (John chapter 3) when a person believers in the Lord Jesus, through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1.25).

 

[graceandpeace]

This was my first time hearing about the "evangelical pattern". Have you heard about this before? What do you think of this article? Apparently MIT did a study on good epidemics and said:

"The research showed three different ways beneficial epidemics spread, and one of them was so similar to the way social movements and religions spread, that they named it the “evangelical pattern.” In the evangelical pattern, those involved actively seek to recruit others, thereby increasing the movement’s size. The research found that the evangelical pattern spread much faster than the exponential path which leads to a normal epidemic’s explosive growth. “That’s because as the number of susceptibles becomes smaller, the number of individuals trying to infect them gets higher” says the MIT Technology Review. “The result is super-exponential growth.”"

Historically speaking, many Christian groups have proselytized. The end results have not always been good. It makes sense that groups that actively "recruit" others - voluntarily or by force - will gain more members than groups that keep to themselves. I don't see any reason to say this makes Christianity "contagious."

Regarding the US today, there is a highly individualized pattern of religion. It shows most clearly with evangelical "non-denominational" groups.
New churches constantly opening up boasting (overly) casual atmospheres & all sorts of attractions to get people excited. Once the high wears off, it's on to the next new or exciting church to "get fired up." This may be an overly cynical analysis on my part, but I'm thinking not by much.

 

[MelodyJane]

You're absolutely right Farouk - it's only through His Holiness that this is happening at all. Still, I found it interesting to see what the science of it said.

 

[MelodyJane]

It makes sense that groups that actively "recruit" others - voluntarily or by force - will gain more members than groups that keep to themselves. I don't see any reason to say this makes Christianity "contagious."

I hear what you're saying. I think that that there is something to be said about the sheer number of Christians today compared to 100 years ago (our grandparents' generation!)

 

[hedrick]

When looking at numbers, remember that the population has grown. Generally when you read that one religion is growing faster or slower than another, you'll find that populations in countries where those religions are dominant are driving the growth.

Despite the numbers, Christianity needs to be careful. A lot of people who grew up as Christians are going into adulthood without any real motivation to continue practicing Christianty, and also without a motivation to be active in a Church. I think some kind of evangelism is needed, but I think we need to start with our own kids.

 

[FireDragon76]

Despite the numbers, Christianity needs to be careful. A lot of people who grew up as Christians are going into adulthood without any real motivation to continue practicing Christianty, and also without a motivation to be active in a Church. I think some kind of evangelism is needed, but I think we need to start with our own kids.

Mainline churches have spent so much time fighting to be on the "cutting edge" of the culture that they have spent a lot of their capital and often alienated the very people that are the best at evangelizing and being passionate about their particular religious traditions. Especially with the relatively frequent revisions in prayer books and theology.

Many mainline churches also have a very hard time articulating why its important to actually be a member of that denomination. This seems especially true of Lutherans. It sort of reminds me of many Eastern Orthodox churches having the reputation for being ethnic enclaves. Lutheranism is not quite that bad but it's very close, and membership seems mostly down to ancestry. Reformed churches seem to have a similar problem but the Reformed tradition is much more closely tied in with American and British culture.

 

[hedrick]

I agree completely that we need to do more evangelism. The Capital Presbytery has a reasonably successful program for that. My own congregation is starting to develop a strategy. I don’t think it’s obvious whether we're going to succeed, but there are examples of liberal churches that have.

But I don’t think it makes sense to leave our evangelism to people whose idea of the Gospel is skewed. The goal of a Church isn’t to be big. It’s to follow Christ.

I think the future of mainline theology may well be in the more liberal evangelical churches, whose theology is becoming almost the same as ours, but who retain the evangelical ethos. I’m not convinced that that ethos requires one to accept conservative theology.

I should note that controversial issues normally make up a fairly small part of the mission and message of the mainline churches. The majority have no desire to spend time fighting about them, nor do I think most of us care about being on the “cutting edge.” The PCUSA tried desperately to avoid the conflict. But it was forced by the fact that a substantial number of people weren't willing to coexist with people who disagreed. Most PCUSA members aren’t involved in outreach to gays, and have other priorities for their church. But when push comes to shove, they’re not prepared to throw people who do have such missions under the bus to maintain peace. I think they were right in this.

I’m not sure it’s a problem that we’re not convincing people that our denominations matter. Most people join a congregation, not a denomination. The job of a denomination is to provide support for the congregations, and to do mission and other work that are beyond what an individual congregation can do. Maybe it's different for Lutherans, but I doubt most new members of our congregation understand the differences between denominations, or care. They join because a friend invited them or because they were attracted by our work in the community.

In a number of countries the mainline churches merged. I don’t object to that, and I think we might have been better off to do it back when it was being seriously considered. But still, multiple mainline denominations that accept each other and cooperate with each other doesn’t seem like a problem to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

Despite the numbers, Christianity needs to be careful. A lot of people who grew up as Christians are going into adulthood without any real motivation to continue practicing Christianty, and also without a motivation to be active in a Church. I think some kind of evangelism is needed, but I think we need to start with our own kids.

I think a lot of the lack of motivation is due to de-motivation. There is a very vocal movement of anti-religionists now days, in case you haven't noticed. And if kids are already sketchy on their religious beliefs, its easy to be persuaded by it.

The fundamentalists were sort of right... culture has turned against Christianity in all forms (this is especially true in Europe, but its starting in the US). The New Atheists, who seem to have influence beyond their numbers, take no prisoners and have no use at all for people like Bishop Spong anymore than they do with Jerry Fallwell. Especially in certain areas of the culture (academia, for example), its very hard to raise kids that will want to continue to be Christians when they move out on their own. I saw it in my own family with my brother. All he learned in college was that religion was a manmade construct and wishful thinking.

It's really astounding... there's plenty of research showing people that have faith and attend churches do better psychologically and in terms of physical health. And yet the message a lot of young people hear is that believing in God and being involved in a religious community is not all that important, at best, or that it is detrimental, a poison, at worst (wasn't the subtitle of one of Dawkins books "How Religion Poisons Everything"?)

And its here that I think a lot of mainline churches don't take the issue seriously. I'm not suggesting that reactionary fundamentalism is the answer but I do think the fundamentalists were onto something, and that progressive Christians in the early 20th century underestimated human depravity, and the need to protect the Church from worldliness. The Neo-Orthodox, who have much more limited influence in mainline churches, understood a better balance between the need to be comprehensible to the culture, and faithful to the tradition at the same time.

You are right about progressive, evangelical churches as being the future. I think mainline congregations that want to stay afloat would do well to look at writers like Brian McLaren, especially when he talks about transcending the liberal/conservative polemics. I honestly think more unity between Catholics and Protestants is necessary to stem the tide of anti-religious secularity, though how to do that as a progressive Christian would be tricky because the Catholic Church is relatively conservative. But I could see moderates being able to do that.

 

[graceandpeace]

I agree that Christians need to focus mostly on their own kids in "making disciples."

Evangelical churches are very motivated to gain members. It is made into a moral imperative & everyone is expected to help "win" people. I don't think mainline churches should copy this behavior, but I do think they could learn something. How do we reach out to others in a way that is inviting but not overbearing?

I also agree that the average person in the pews doesn't care about the denomination. They care about whether they feel welcome, whether they "get something" out of it, & what's available for their kids (if applicable).

TEC's motto might be one of welcoming, but my experience visiting congregations has been mixed. Where I attend now, I honestly didn't feel welcome there during initial visits for the most part, but the clergy won me over in their welcome. Since then I've felt better, more welcome, but it should serve as a warning where someone less motivated than myself might have just moved on to the next church.