The Spiritual Dimension in the USA and Canada

Neculai Pieptu
MA American Studies - 1st year

Department of English
Studies

Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the course
Contact Zones – Professor Rodica Albu

Al. I. Cuza University

June 7, 2011

1
 The Spiritual Dimension in Canada and the USA

1. Generalities

The intention of this essay is to present a very short overview of the spiritual dimension in
Canada and USA, to take into consideration a few reasons people attend institutionalized
churches less and less, and to take into consideration a certain spiritual movement called
simple or organic church.

In Canada, according to the New World Encyclopedia, spiritual life is

“characterized by diversity, tolerance and harmony. Canada is a multicultural society

with a rich mosaic of religious, cultural, and ethnic communities. Consequently, its
demographically heterogeneous population includes many faith groups who live side-
by-side in relatively peaceful co-existence. Although Canada has no official state
religion, its constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms mentions "God" but no
specific beliefs are indicated. While Canadian cities are religiously diverse, its vast
countryside tends to be predominantly Christian and most people reported in the
national census that they are Christians. Canada stands out as a model of tolerance,
respect, and religious harmony in the modern world today. Support for religious
pluralism is an important part of Canada's political culture.”

The United States seems to be, arguably though, the most religious nation on the face of the
earth. Different public opinion polls indicate that more than 90 percent of all Americans
believe in some kind of Higher Power. Around 60 percent attend religious services, an unusual
percentage for developed nations. Even though almost 40 percent of USA citizens do not
participate at religious programs, many of them claim to be strongly religious or spiritual.
(Spiritual, But Not Religious. R.C. Fuller, Oxford, 2001)

We find out from other sources like Wikipedia that

“the majority of Americans (76%) identify themselves as Christians, mostly within

2
 Protestant and Catholic denominations, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population
respectively. Non-Christian religions (including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and
Judaism), collectively make up about 3.9% to 5.5% of the adult population. Another
15% of the adult population identifies as having no religious belief or no religious
affiliation. When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply.
According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies
considerably across the country: 59% of Americans living in Western states (the
"Unchurched Belt") report a belief in God, yet in the South (the "Bible Belt") the figure
is as high as 86%. The First Amendment to the country's Constitution prevents the
Federal government from making any "law respecting an establishment of religion",
and guarantees the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court has interpreted this as
preventing the government from having any authority in religion.”

As we can notice, it is a “wide-open marketplace” for spiritual and religious seekers in USA. I
agree with Robert C. Fuller: “this free and open religious environment is due in large part to
the efforts of Thomas Jefferson.”1 The “wall of separation” between State and Religion
envisioned by the most brilliant American founding father, “helped create a religious
democracy almost unrivaled in world history.” (Robert, C. Fuller, 2004)

The church attendance nowadays, despite the religious democracy in the United States, Canada
and other parts of the world is facing a major crisis. Some polls indicate that approximately 80
percent of North American churches have reached a plateau or are declining.2 The majority of
the church’s growth comes from “switchers” (people who move from one church to another).
There is little conversion growth (somewhere between 1-3% as some researchers suggest).

In this context of church attendance decline, a number of interesting things jump out from a
census dated in 2000. The most important one seems to be the increase of people who
answered “no religion” in the surveys. According to some evidence, the fastest growing
religious status in USA is … “no religion” (around 15 percentage from the respondents). In this

1
Robert C. Fuller, Religious Revolutionaries. The Rebels Who Reshaped American Religion,
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004, page 207
2
Daniel R. Sanchez, Church Planting Movements in North America (Fort Worth, TX: Church
Starting Network, 2007), page18. (from internet sources)

3
circumstances, “humanists and skeptics would like to take credit for this swelling population,
but another approach to these numbers is that it is not any attraction that atheism offers that is
causing people to reject mainline religions in the United States and Canada, but rather the fact
that most people are finding that mainline religions have nothing to offer”, says the former
atheist John N. Clayton.

He makes some interesting statements about the success or failure of the religious groups that
try to win more adherents. For instance,“ religion that is structured so that power struggles can
exist will eventually self-destruct”. He points out that the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ,
taught His disciples how to serve each other in love, and whoever wants to be greater must be
the servant of all (Bible references: Matthew 20:27-28, John 13:5-16).

John N. Clayton also sustains that “religion that cannot give reasonable answers will die”. I do
agree to the fact that intelligent people need intelligent answers. I would prefer the answer “I
don’t really know about... This is my opinion according to these facts….”, than to have my
intelligence insulted by foolish replies. Watching Clayton’s series “Does God Exist?”, I was
really impressed by the connection between science and faith made by the author and by the
penetrating answers to disputable questions like: How do we know God created the cosmos?
Who created God? Why did God create mankind? Is life in outer space possible? Do animals
have a soul? What happens when we die?

“Religion that does not offer unique help in meeting needs (both individual
and societal) will be rejected”, another statement made by Clayton,
represents, from my point of view, one of the main reasons “no religion”
people will continue cu grow in numbers. They would be more receptive to
a religious message if religious people met the needs of others. The
following verse from the New Testament emphasizes the importance of
practicing religion: "Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father
is this, to visit the widows and orphans in their affliction and to keep
himself unspotted from the world" (James 1:27).

I would conclude this part of my short essay affirming that the spiritual

4
dimension in North America is a complex phenomenon. People are
becoming “less religious and more spiritual”, searching authentic and
intelligent answers to simple and legitimate questions. The case study that
follows supports this statement.

2. Case Study – Simple or Organic Church – from “going to church” to “being the
church”

Why did I leave the institutional church? To begin with, I became painfully bored with Sunday-
morning church services. That was true across the board – no matter what denomination (or
non-denomination) I attended. I also saw very little spiritual transformation in the people who
attended these churches. And the spiritual growth that I myself experienced seemed to occur
outside of traditional church settings. In addition, something deep within me longed for an
experience of church that mapped to what I read about in my New Testament. And I couldn’t
seem to find it in any traditional church I attended. In fact, the more I read the Bible, the more I
became convinced that the contemporary church had departed from its biblical roots. The result
was that I pulled the rip chord on institutional Christianity, and I began meeting with a group of
Christians in an organic way3.4

I consider the above quoted paragraph very illustrative for the spiritual changes and challenges
among the North American Christians.

A survey by Barna Research, done in January 2011, indicates that about 11.5 million American
adults attend a "house church or simple church, which is not associated in any way with a
local, congregational type of church," at least weekly or monthly. It seems that some people are
leaving the old, accepted ways of “doing church” for different approaches, even for “old ones,

3
The term organic, according to Frank Viola, does not refer to a particular model of
church, as a perfect model does not exist. An organic church is perceived as a “living,
breathing, dynamic, mutually participatory, every-member-functioning, Christ-centered,
communal expression of the body of Christ.”
4
Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, published by David C. Cook Distribution Canada, 2008,
page 11

5
rooted in the Holy Scriptures and the eternal principles of the living God.”5 They seem to be
disappointed by being mere spectators that warm the pews of the institutional church.6

The biblical model of practicing faith is considered forgotten and neglected. The institutional
church replaced the organic way of the first Christians. The adherents of the simple church
question in a Socratic way all the accepted customs of the Christian practices and tradition: “If
the truth be told, we Christians never seem to ask why we do what we do. Instead, we blithely
carry out our religious traditions without asking where they came from. Most Christians who
claim to uphold the integrity of God's Word have never sought to see if what they do every
Sunday has any scriptural backing.”(Frank Viola; George Barna, 2008)

According to George Barna and Frank Viola, other practices occurring in the institutionalized
church are being questioned. From their point of view, the church buildings are wrongly
associated with the “house of God” and they are not a necessary part for worship. The early
Christians were “the only religious people on earth who did not erect sacred buildings for their
worship” (George Barna, Frank Viola, 2008). The clergy, the priests, and the pastors from
different Christian denominations, are considered to be at odds with “the true priesthood of all
believers”. The church meeting should be a place where every church member is functioning
for mutual edification (1 Corinthians 12-14). Being an elder or deacon in a church meeting
does not mean this person dominates the meeting. The simple church largely believe the idea
that an elder or deacon is not a license for some to minister and others to be passive
(Wikipedia).

The weekly sermon in the institutionalized church, “the Protestantism’s most sacred cow”, is
believed to be of Greek origin7 having a negative impact for the believers, and encourages

5
George Barna, Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity? : exploring the roots of our church
practices, 2002, 2008, page XXV
6
This term refers to “a religious system and not to a particular group of people. An
institutional church is one that operates primarily as an organization that exists above,
beyond, and independent of the members who populate it. It is constructed more on
programs and rituals than on relationships and it is led by set-apart professionals, called
“ministers” or “clergy” who are aided by volunteers (“laity”)” (Frank Viola)
7
In the fifth century BC the sophists are credited for inventing rhetoric (the art of
persuasive speaking)

6
passivity. The sermon in the monologue format “suffocates” mutual ministry. It creates “a
pathological dependence on the clergy” and it makes the preacher “the religious specialist, …,
the only one having anything worthy to say.”8 It “deprives the church from receiving spiritual
nourishment from one another”, and also “rather than equipping the saints, the sermon de-skills
them.”9 The simple church puts the emphasis on every believer “to share his or her portion of
Christ (1 Corinthians14:26, Colossians 3:16, Hebrews 10:24-25). All are free to teach, preach,
prophesy, pray, and lead a song.”10

Researching the simple church movement, we find out about its core values. These values or,
metaphorically speaking, the so-called “DNA” of the simple church (promoted by
House2House Ministries and DAWN North America) are:

“D - Divine Truth : Truth is the foundation for everything. By Divine Truth, we mean the dynamic and
living presence of Christ and His Word. “D” stands also for “Divine Connection”.
N - Nurturing Relationships : Healthy relationships are what make up a family. Love for one another is
to be a constant pursuit of the family of God. This is the most basic of Christ's commands.
A - Apostolic Mission : Apostolic means, simply, “sent.” Just as Jesus was sent on a mission, so we are
sent out on a mission for Him. Our mission is to go into the world and disciple the nations for their good
and God's glory.”11 (Wikipedia)

The simple church perceives the community of believers as a living organism rather than an
institutional organization. This organism has its own “DNA” or a “spiritual genetic code”
written by the “Triune God”, a “Community of Three Persons”. This Trinity “operates”
through “mutual love, mutual fellowship, mutual dependence, mutual honor, mutual
submission, mutual dwelling, and authentic community”.12 Being created in the image of the
Triune God (“Let us make man in our image, in our likeness” – Genesis 1:26), human beings
8
George Barna, Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity? : exploring the roots of our church
practices, 2002, 2008, page 98
9
Ibid., page 98
10
Ibid., page 103
11
Adherents Paul Kaak (who began ministry in one of the largest and most systematized
mega-churches in America) and Neil Cole originally articulated these values using the
organic metaphor of DNA. (Source: Wikipedia)
12
Frank Viola, Reimagining Church, published by David C. Cook Distribution Canada, 2008,
page 35

7
are just an organic extension and, should manifest the same “fellowship” practically within the
community of believers.

In a few words, the simple/organic church “reimagines a vision of church that is organic in its
construction; relational in its functioning; scriptural in its form; Christ-centered in its
operation; Trinitarian in its shape; communitarian in its lifestyle” (the community must not be
bigger than 20 people in order to offer real fellowship and avoid religious programs. If it gets
bigger, the “cell” is supposed to divide and multiply itself. More “cells” or house churches are
encouraged to meet periodically in order to celebrate the common spiritual life); “non-elitist in
its attitude; and non-sectarian in its expression.”13

In my opinion, the simple or organic church movement represents mostly a reaction against the
disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the practices and the efficiency of the institutionalized
Christian churches. The emphasis is less on “going to church”, and more on “being the
church.” Some people consider this spiritual movement reasonable, and others completely
unreasonable. George Bernard Shaw once said: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the
world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all
progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

13
Ibid., page 26

8
 REFERENCES

Barna, George, Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity? : exploring the roots of our church practices,
published by Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2002, 2008

Viola, Frank, Reimagining Church, published by David C. Cook Distribution Canada, 2008

New World Encyclopedia

R.C. Fuller, Spiritual, But Not Religious, Oxford, 2001

Robert C. Fuller, Religious Revolutionaries. The Rebels Who Reshaped American Religion,
Palgrave Macmillan, 2004,

Wikipedia