Modern Christian Ethics, a Social Darwinism?

A year ago I had a conversation with my uncle Scott Hubbard, who is a pastor, about the direction (dare I say progression?) of the modern church on issues surrounding the lives of homosexuals. I proposed something then that I still stand by, that the church’s ethical stance is completely irrelevant because it has given itself over to a Social Darwinism and therefore will run mostly parallel to society’s ethical demands.

The modern American church finds itself descended in many ways from the social gospel movement in which the church decidedly took it upon itself to “build” the kingdom of god. When one tasks one’s self with the premise that they are responsible for building the kingdom questions of pragmatic method become important; methods such as what kind of music genre is engendered in the worship segment, what kind of speaking style is used in the sermon, whether or not women are ordained, et al.

This Christian praxis accelerates coming into the 19th and 20th centuries, as consumer business practices become the model for building the modern mega church. The idea that is crystallized in George Barna’s Habits of Highly Effective Churches is that in which the consumer entertainment model is superimposed onto the message and practices of the church towards the end of "putting people in the pews".

But, when ideological content is stripped to capitulate to consumer demands while conversely being replaced by the entertainment value of music and theatrical speaking, consumerism becomes the end. It creates a Darwinian structure where churches live and die based on their ability meet the demands of consumers. Having up-to-date video, audio, lighting, and most importantly theatre, puts people in the pews. Furthermore, basic societal presuppositions become a factor for an individual who is “shopping” for a new church.

There are scarcely any churches remaining that support slavery. In fact the same can be said about churches that support segregation (unless you find yourself in the deep south). At some point in time society changed. Churches that didn’t change with it died off because consumers refused to buy the product. Pastors going to seminaries, in turn, shopped for those that aligned with their progressive values and eventually planted more progressive churches which exploded while their conservative counterparts atrophied. The same took place with the ordination of women. More and more churches recognize the ordination of women all the time. While this battle, for women, is not over its trajectory provides a vital clue for the church on current homosexual issues.

This belies the Darwinistic social structures that the church conforms itself to. Society is slowly but surely moving towards siding with Gays as it did with Blacks and Mexicans and Women. I believe very strongly that this will eventually force churches to either side with society or become an endangered species. Since the church has already relegated itself to conforming to consumer demands, I believe that the endgame will play itself out in two ways. Churches will either side with society and re-examine their stances on Gay issues or take a very hard line endorsing a public polemic and eventually collapse from a lack of support.

The crux of this issue that really put my uncle Scott into a state of trepidation was the fact that the church would change for reasons that had nothing to do with its moral fiber. And as I contemplate it, when I look at the church today which gladly accepts Blacks and Mexicans into their fold without reserve, it doesn’t make any kind of amends or even really acknowledge the church’s dirty past in race issues when it overwhelmingly supported segregation. To think eventually the church would open it’s arms to homosexuals while simultaneously (and conveniently) forgetting it’s past promulgating bigotry and hate towards homosexuals, leaves me with a stomach churning feeling. At which point I wonder whether I would even be able to stomach it's new found "progression" since it will not be a change from within but defeated from without.