Mere Churchianity: Finding Your Way Back to Jesus-Shaped Spirituality
by Michael Spencer
Reviewed by Matt Edwards
In Mere Churchianity, Michael Spencer (aka The Internet Monk) urges those wounded by the church to return to a Jesus-shaped spirituality. Writing primarily to those who have left or are leaving the church, Spencer urges his readers to forget the idols of megachurches, superpastors, prosperity preaching, culture wars, patriotism, moralism, and conformity, and look for the God who is Jesus. For those familiar with Spencer’s writing, the book is classic iMonk.
Hundreds of thousands read Spencer’s blog, www.internetmonk.com. In 2009, his Christian Science Monitor article, “The Coming Evangelical Collapse,” became an internet sensation and catapulted him to the national spotlight, landing him television and radio attention and a book deal. Mere Churchianity would have been the first of many books written by the prophet from Appalachia, were it not for his tragic death in April 2010 of a brain tumor. We lost a great man.
I am hesitant to review Mere Churchianity because of the timing of its release and of Spencer’s death. I don’t want people to misunderstand me. Before “The Coming Evangelical Collapse,” Spencer’s next project was to be the search for Jesus-shaped spirituality. It seemed that Spencer’s deconstructive journey through the post-evangelical wilderness drove him to a Jesus-shaped reconstruction. Given the theme and subtitle of the book, it feels like the consummation of his ministry as Internet Monk. Undoubtedly this would not have been the case, but given the timing of its release with his death, it feels like it is.
All of this is to say that this
is a review of Mere Churchianty, not of Spencer’s life or ministry. That
review is someone else’s to write. I was (and continue to be) a faithful reader
of his blogs. I would even call them “life-changing” for me. I emailed him a
couple of times, listened to his podcast,
and even contributed some articles for a series he called “The
Evangelical Untouchables” (think Eliot Ness), but I never talked to him. I am
not qualified to write about the legacy of the Internet Monk, so please, read
this as a review of the book, not the man.
Mere Churchianity is
written to people who have either left the church or who are leaving the
church. He opens with a story from his early days as a youth pastor, taking his
group to a Dairy Queen after a long Sunday of church activities. The students
were loud, obnoxious, and destructive, and he later received a letter from one
of the Dairy Queen employees. She lambasted Spencer for allowing his group to
behave so selfishly, uncaring about how their behavior affected others or about
who had to clean up after them. She also let him know that she was a member of
his church and had recently become an atheist. She wrote, “Christians like you
have convinced me that God is a myth, an excuse used by religious people to
mistreat others. As long as there are people like you and your youth group,
I’ll never come to church or believe in God again.” (2)
In his youth, Spencer wrote the
girl off as a disgruntled atheist looking for someone to blame for her
problems. In his older age, he realized that there was more to the story than
the girl let on. He recognized an unwritten subtext to her letter, “You see,
Mr. Spencer, even though I’ve left the church and the faith you are pushing, I
still know a bit about Jesus. Christianity ought to be about Jesus, and with
you, it’s not. . . . If Christians were at all about Jesus . . . then I might
have some hope again that the church isn’t full of liars.” (6)
Spencer came to realize the
truth in the girl’s words. Christians should be about Jesus. At Dairy Queen,
Spencer and his youth group weren’t about Jesus; they were arrogant,
ungracious, unloving, and confident that God was on their side. He writes, “The
girl working behind the counter pointed all this out to me more than three
decades ago, but I wasn’t listening. Today I am paying attention, and this book
is my repentance.” (7)
The theme of Mere Churchianity
is that, because most American evangelical churches have abandoned Christianity
for churchianity, post-evangelicals need not leave Jesus, even if they have
left the church. Churchianity is Christianity without Jesus. Like a pecan pie
without pecans, most churches have little to nothing to do with Jesus, even if
they have a big sign out front proclaiming “Jesus is here.”
The problem, according to
Spencer, is that most evangelical churches care more about numbers, budgets,
celebrity, influence, culture wars, or patriotism than they do about Jesus. The
solution, according to Spencer, is return to a Jesus-shaped spirituality. How
do we distinguish the real Jesus from false Jesuses? The Scriptures (83, 118).
What can we know about Jesus? Jesus really existed (85), Jesus was Jewish (85),
Jesus was a part of an oppressed people (86), Jesus accepted the Old Testament,
but reinterpreted it as about him (88), and Jesus is God incarnate (89). What
does it look like to follow Jesus? Following Jesus means proclaiming the gospel
of the kingdom of God, encouraging discipleship, and witnessing to the presence
of the kingdom (102). Discipleship includes knowing God as Father, experiencing
forgiveness, following Jesus in community, and participating in the mission of
the church (100).
One of the more provocative
ideas in Mere Churchianity is the role that Spencer gives “the church”
in Jesus-shaped spirituality. On the one hand, Spencer agrees with Luther that
“the church” is where the Word of God is preached and the sacraments are
administered (212). So, two Jesus-followers meeting over coffee does not
qualify as a “church.” On the other hand, he questions whether “only the most
self-defined, formally recognized institutions get to make the call on what
qualifies as Jesus’ movement.” (212)
Spencer compares following Jesus
to playing baseball. Baseball was always a big part of his life and his
childhood summers were filled with sandlot ball. Now, in the same town, there
was also little league. In little league, there were uniforms. There were
scoreboards, and umpires, and bleachers. Sandlot ball had none of that. A tree
served as second base. There wasn’t always enough players to field every
position. But did that make sandlot ball less “real” baseball than little league?
In the same way, a coffee-shop gathering of Jesus followers may not be a
“church,” but it isn’t any less of a Jesus movement. The problem with the
church, according to Spencer, is that it is full of people who know all of the
rules, own all of the equipment, know all of the stats, and blog about player
performance, but who have never played the game. Spencer wanted to see people
play the game, however informally.
The best thing about Mere
Churchianity is hearing Spencer’s voice again. In several places I found
myself tearing up as I remembered what an important voice we lost in Michael
Spencer. I miss his wit. He writes about the pressure to conform, “There are
many who leave the church because they find they are confronted by an
inexplicable hostility toward solitude and individuality. In the community that
says ‘God loves you,’ many feel that the next line is ‘and he dislikes
everything about you.’” (182)
I miss his compassion. He writes
to those who have failed to live up to the lie of “victorious” Christian
living, “If you have left the church or are headed for the door, there is a
strong possibility that you have to leave in order to hold on to your
integrity. You realized you can no longer play the religion game. You may be
playing other games–I’m not letting any of us off the hook. But you found you
could no longer be party to the endless act that you are living the victorious
Christian life.” (136)
I miss his honesty. He writes
about his wife’s conversion to Roman Catholicism, “I’ve never seen my wife
happier in her relationship with the God she knows through Jesus. We love each
other and rejoice that we belong to Jesus and share communion in him, if not at
the same table.” (179)
I even miss his snark. He writes
about the coming evangelical collapse, “If you’re ever around evangelical
Christians, though, you realize they have the opposite problem. They believe
their ship is listing to one side because it gives them a more interesting look
at the iceberg. Evangelicals believe that people who distance themselves from
the church are not disenchanted but are ‘under conviction of the Holy Spirit.’
Christians are convinced that the generally low opinion people have of
them–such as not wanting Christians as neighbors and trying to avoid having a
conversation with Christians–is because people can’t deal with the
uncomfortable truth about Jesus. Evangelicals believe the growing numbers of
young adults who grew up in church-attending families and then abandoned the
ship of faith is the fault of Hollywood, liberals, rock music, and sex.
Riiight.” (23)
The book is a must-read for
iMonk followers.
People have written much about
Spencer’s unique voice. They appreciate his honesty, his passion, and his grace
(even when refusing to back down from an argument). I always appreciated his
love for the church. In an age when it is popular (and easy) to bash the
church, Spencer loved her. But, he loved her as one whose heart had been broken
by his beloved’s abusive and self-destructive behavior. He loved her as one who
had to put his foot down and say, “enough.” Internetmonk.com was an
intervention. But, despite his frankness about the house of cards we
evangelicals have constructed, he never left. “Enough” never really meant
“enough.” In the spirit of Martin Luther, Spencer’s true desire was to reform
from within. This desire bleeds through the pages of Mere Churchianity.
After quoting Jesus’ message to
the wayward churches in the first few chapters of Revelation, Spencer writes,
“It’s astonishing to hear Jesus speak to first-century Christians this way, and
even more astonishing to read his invitations to these churches; to return to
Jesus himself. Over and over, the same invitation: return to me.” (210)
My one concern when reading Mere
Churchianity is what people would do with it. Would they take Spencer’s
advice about reforming from within (perhaps redefining what “within” looks like),
or would they latch on to Spencer’s critiques and ignore his exhortations? The
last thing Spencer would have wanted was for his book to start a movement of
“Jesus-shaped” Christians who represented “the biblical Jesus” and who wagged
their fingers at all the godless phonies, cowards, and sell-outs who refused to
see evangelicalism for what it was. Sadly, people being what they are, many
will do just that.
So, my question for the Jesus Creed
community is, “How do ‘Jesus-shaped’ Christians (or Third Way Christians or
whatever you want to label yourself) treat those who refuse to join us?” Let’s
grant that Spencer is right–evangelicalism has sold out and is going the way of
the dinosaur. Let’s grant that a new breed of evangelicals is emerging from the
smoldering ashes of what went before. Given that this transition will take
decades to realize, how do we move forward without sitting in judgment over
those who have gone before? Can we follow Spencer’s example and “share
communion with them, if not at the same table”?
If you are a member of a church
committed to “churchianity,” what thing(s) can you do to encourage your church
to return to Jesus? If you have left “churchianity” in favor of something new,
what things can you do to guard yourself from a new self-righteousness?
posted July 17, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Nice review Matt. The title of the book turned me off a bit (well without the subtitle anyway), but this review leads me to want to read it.
I would say that ‘Jesus-shaped’ Christians must share communion with others – and at the same table so far as it depends on them. Romans 12 is one of my favorite passages (especially as it comes right after 9-11).
Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly Do not be wise in your own estimation. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God. … Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
posted July 17, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“I always appreciated his love for the church. In an age when it is popular (and easy) to bash the church, Spencer loved her. But, he loved her as one whose heart had been broken by his beloved’s abusive and self-destructive behavior. He loved her as one who had to put his foot down and say, ‘enough.’”
Well said, Matt! So many of us identified with Michael in this loving anger for the many institutions & their bureaucracies under the name, “church” which have been corrupted by people seeking power & pursuing agendas other than seeking God-in-Jesus Christ!
posted July 17, 2010 at 3:07 pm
I’ve been reading Michael for several year and miss him deeply. I do agree that the title leaves a lot to be desired. I’d much rather that the subtitle had been the main one. Michaels’ passion was to be honest, whether with himself or with the larger evangelical church. He was a work in progress all along. And I think he’s given us who read him and “knew” him the truly prophetic voice we so desperately need in this time and place. I know his ministry shaped me and helped me immeasurably by forcing me to look past all of the filters which cloud my vision. Like him I’m a work in progress, and like Michael, I hope that there’s progress in the work.
posted July 17, 2010 at 4:07 pm
Really enjoyed this — it was a marvelous read. And I was skeptical about this title as I initially figured it to be nothing added to imonk prolific blog output over the past years.
Apparent how all that blog writing honed Michael’s writing ability.
And made me so sad that while reading even, acknowledging that Hesse taken from us entirely too soon
posted July 17, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I have left churchianity again and I have been working on discerning the meaning and truth and attitude to have toward the churchianites. I must say, it is a difficult journey.
I am a two time loser now and it is tempting to want to throw it all in. But I really do believe there is a reason to have optimism about the future. A friend recently said to me “well, at least nature will take it’s course with them” and that may be true, but I don’t have another 40 years of desert wandering to give to see something come of this.
I have yet to fine the way to have a relationship with the churchianites that does not compromise the way of Jesus. I also, due to human fallibility, do not have the where with all to go the missional route and feel good about it. I am a free spirit and I want to find a way to help change the situation, within the bounds of my beliefs, and in a way that accomplishes change. Again, 40 years of desert wandering to let them die off is not attractive to me, but it may be the only way.
And, thanks for this. I did not read him and I now see I missed a wonderful person.
posted July 17, 2010 at 7:30 pm
It’s a wonderful book. I read it right after it was published (last month) and really enjoyed it. I encourage you all to check it out. It’ll be worth your time. I loaned it to my sister who is basically unchurched, but has faith. She has a lot of problems with the Church, especially the Catholic church (her husband is Catholic). I don’t know if she’s read it yet, but I’d love to know her reaction to it coming from outside the church.
I think the problem with the title is that it doesn’t easily convey that it’s mocking.
posted July 17, 2010 at 9:07 pm
I was wondering if this was going to be reviewed here or not. I haven’t read but I’m soon going to buy it and I truly miss him at the internet monk; they really are doing some great things in carrying on his legacy at the iMonk blog.
By the way thanks for a thorough review. For all the talk I’ve heard about it I haven’t heard of it in any depth.
posted July 17, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I’m almost certain that Mere Churchianity was not Michael’s choice for the title of his book, but that of the publisher.
posted July 17, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Bill wrote, “I’m almost certain that Mere Churchianity was not Michael’s choice for the title of his book, but that of the publisher.”
I think that may be true, Bill, but Michael seemed “tickled” by the title and seemed like he wished so much he could share the secret of what it was going to be called, but he had to wait until some particular time to let us all know.
posted July 17, 2010 at 10:36 pm
Matt, thanks for the review. Michael was truly unique individual, a prophetic voice of grace from a holler in eastern Kentucky that somehow in God’s providence spoke to people all around the world. I hope the book will be widely read and discussed, with thoughtfulness and constructive criticism. It’s what he would have wanted.
posted July 17, 2010 at 10:50 pm
Matt, for me the answer is trying really hard to see the good that I know exists.
I look foward to reading this. I was a big imonk fan.
posted July 17, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Does Spencer have any stats or studies that back up the “most” in: “The theme of Mere Churchianity is that, because most American evangelical churches have abandoned Christianity for churchianity, post-evangelicals need not leave Jesus, even if they have left the church.”
I’m trying to figure out this post-evangelical thing out but it’s a bit confusing to me. It seems like post-evangelicals are saying that evangelicalism has sort of lost its roots and is therefore not being true to Christ and is (hopefully) dying off. It seems to me to be maybe a revival type movement, except it seems to have a bit of a rebellious, “I don’t want to be associated with those people” type feel that emphasizes “post-” more than “evangelical”.
Is there evidence that churchianity is any more prevalent in evangelical circles than fundamentalist, mainline, Roman Catholic, etc. ? Is there evidence that it has been in increasing problem? It seems to me that it is an age-old problem, one that the NT talks about even, and so I’m not sure I see the point of post-evangelicalism. Mere Churchianity sounds like a great book though for pastors, church leaders, and seminary students.
posted July 17, 2010 at 11:07 pm
@JHM
I don’t know and I suspect that Michael wouldn’t have wanted to prove his case with statistics. He was operating from a position of personal experience. So he’d point to things like the prosperity gospel and Joel Osteen’s popularity in Evangelicalism as supporting his thesis. But I doubt he’d ever produce raw data to back it up. I don’t think we should get hung up on semantics though — his point still stands, a lot (some?) of evangelicalism has lost it’s focus — and that has caused people to look outside of the church for their spiritual needs.
posted July 17, 2010 at 11:16 pm
I’m a fan of the Internet Monk, but not particularly a fan of the book. I was so excited to get it, but I was disappointed when I read it. I can’t really put my finger on what exactly I didn’t like about it, but I didn’t think it was very well written. I loved his writing in his blog, though, and certainly miss him. He was a good guy.
posted July 17, 2010 at 11:25 pm
Kenny,
I guess maybe it depends on your definition of evangelical then? I normally think of Joel Osteen/prosperity gospel as being heretical to rather than welcomed by evangelicalism. That many evangelicals aren’t acting/thinking like evangelicals (as defined say with Bebbington’s quadrilateral) ought to doesn’t seem like sufficient justification for a “post-” movement, that’s why I’m confused. When I hear a lot of what Spencer was saying in Mere Churchianity I’m thinking, “right on”, but then I don’t see how that’s much more than saying “you Christians need to remember Christ and put him first”. Anyway, I don’t want to derail the discussion of the book with my confusion between evangelical and post-evangelical, I just wondered if Spencer specifically addressed the difference in the book.
posted July 17, 2010 at 11:49 pm
@JHM
But I think it’s larger than that, he was upset with Evangelicals focus on the culture wars, the religious right (even though I think he was conservative), anti-intellectualism, strict inerrancy, and many of the other things that evangelicals became known for politically and culturally. From his website:
I don’t want to speak for him and I don’t think he defines it in the book — I’m not even sure he mentions the term. I think many consider Osteen as part of Evangelicalism whether you want to get rid of him or not.
“I believe the way forward for evangelicalism is the way back to the roots of the broader, deeper, more ancient, more ecumenical church, not forward into more of what evangelicals have been doing the last 50 years.”
posted July 18, 2010 at 12:32 am
read the book
liked the book
what if the generalizations and suppositions were left behind what kind of book would you be left with?
I liked the book mainly because it came from an angle of watch out and not you better be like me.
the only debatable point i see is in the application of the themes in the book. any one of the ideas mentioned can be overdone and misused.
i have a lot of things to consider given my role in the evangelical church.
made me think
helped me to better understand my current discomfort with the application of my role and position
most of all it challenged me to see myself for who i am and question my own motives in what i do.
bravo Mr. Spencer.
posted July 18, 2010 at 4:20 pm
I’m most of the way through the book, and I generally like it a lot, though I think his best writing was contained on his blog. I agree with what he’s writing, mainly from personal experience in a Evangelical church. It seems like every other week the sermon is a rant against the government, the worship leader is leading songs that really aren’t made for congregational singing, the sermon series are stuck in the Old Testament and seem to have little to do with Jesus or the Gospel. Our number is dropping from about 175 when I started going there to about 60-70 now. I started reading his stuff about a year and a half ago, when “The Coming Evangelical Collapse” was fresh. He does seem prophetic.
posted July 18, 2010 at 4:26 pm
One of the things that radicalized me at a prominent Reformed/Presbyterian seminary was a question posed in a missiology course: Do you see yourself as part of a church-shaped mission or a mission-shaped church? Sadly, that professor resigned a year later (he was approved for tenure, even) I suspect due to too many clashes with The Establishment. The Establishment, led by an ecclesiology professor who essentially taught a Roman theology of the Church, was consumed with ecclesiastical process and the sausage-making in regional church bodies and national bureaucracies. He moved on to a mainline seminary in a midwestern city where he would feel more free to discuss such things but I wonder how many there really “get it.” Spencer’s ruminations in 2010 sound remarkably similar to what I heard in 1994. Is our identity tied inextricably with our rules & procedures or are we willing to live with a church order that is deliberately vague with only a few basic ideal and/or principles that must be contextualized in a local environment?
However, on the flip side, a willy-nilly free-fo-all opens itself up to all the vagaries of human depravity (I’m very much a Calvinist) such as corrupt or unqualified leadership, financial irregularities, and especially the ability of bad or heretical doctrine to take root. This is why, btw, I’m now an Anglican because it was this structure that allowed the historical faith to be kept, yeah, Constantinianism certainly was a big help (theonimists & reconstructionists yearn for those days again) but the faithful bishops passed the apostolic faith on to the next generation. But I digress.
My personal concern with Evangelicalism is the lack of concern over the non-negotiable core of the faith: Nicean & Chalcedonian Christology. Reducing Christianity to “finding the real Jesus” means point-blank accepting the Christ as the One who is the Incarnate Son of God, the Second Person of the Trinity in the flesh. Doctrine matters. Q & A 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism in all of it’s majesty is followed by a series of plain, clear, and sometimes uncomfortable (to turn a phrase) statements regarding sin, salvation, & service. Too often sermons (or teaching times, if that’s what they’re called) sound like marketing management classes: “4 Keys To Positive Growth” or “See Real Change Today! 5 Steps For Motivation, Evaluation, Implementation” We’re all about marketing but what product are we humping ultimately? A “hopey, changey” Jesus?
posted July 19, 2010 at 6:33 pm
Wow, the Evangelical Church is a dinosaur heading for exstinction, a smoldering ash, that will burn out in the next, what, 20, 30, 40 years? What will us new, enlightened, real Jesus Follows do while the ashes go out?
That is not really a book review. It is more an apologetic.
Does the Evangelical movement have weaknesses? Yes. Does it have excesses? Yes. Are some of it’s more fringe elements easy targets? Yes. But does it also have some strengths and positives? Yes.
Much the same can also be said of Chatholicism, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, and even Jesus Creeders.
Instead of “dancing on the ashes”, maybe there should be more of an effort to love, understand, correct, influence, and positive engagement instead of such a focus on negativity and criticism.
posted July 20, 2010 at 10:29 am
Excited to see your opinion on this book. There is so much transition and deconstruction going on right now in Evangelicalism that its hard to see (I would say impossible as of yet) where it’s all going. I liken Mere Churchianity as a grief counselor. We’ve lost something – something has died (maybe historic evangelicalism) and the children of evangelicalism are all in different stages of the grief process.
Some say there are 5 steps, some say 7, so here are the seven. I really believe that the more deeply we have historically attached ourselves to Evangelicalism, the more thorough we will have to be in going through this process. Those who are less connected will most likely have a diminished intensity of this process or may not even notice it. Others will notice it all too well. Not every stage is experienced on the surface but I, as a recovering evangelical, post-evangelical, etc… really identify with some of these stages.
Shock & Denial
Pain and Guilt
Anger and Bargaining
Depression/Reflection & Lonliness
Upward Turn
Reconstruction and Work through
Acceptance and Hope
Something new and beautiful is coming and Spencer was here to help us move through the grief of something we deeply identified with and now have lost. This helps me.