What's Tony Thinking

Neo-Liberalism and The Church

Share!

In my blog wrapping up 2024 I noted that my favorite non-fiction book of 2024 was historian Gary Gerstle’s, The Rise and Fall of the Neo-Liberal Order: America and the World in the Free Market Era. It’s a terrific book, which I strongly recommend.

Gerstle explores neo-liberalism’s roots in post-WWII Europe. While starting there, neo-liberalism came to its fullest realization in the U.S., in the period from the 1970’s through 2010. A lot of ground work was laid in the 1960’s and 70’s. That came to fruition in the 198o’s with the Reagan presidency. The Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations all accepted the basics of neo-liberalism, with Clinton taking it further, in many ways, than Reagan. The younger Bush pushed neo-liberalism in foreign affairs (spread democracy and free markets), while Obama embodied neo-liberal cosmopolitanism.

So what is “neo-liberalism”? The heart of it is the primacy of the market, along with a parallel reduction in government regulation (and a drastic reduction of trust in the government). Markets must be as open and as dynamic as possible to generate as much growth and prosperity as possible as fast as possible — without government oversight or interference. Government did have a role, but a limited one: to preserve order and stability so that markets, corporations and investors had needed security to do their thing.

Beyond the emphasis on the market as primary, other aspects of neo-liberalism included borders that were open for the free or easy movement of people and capital in a global economy. Culturally it meant a high value on individual freedom, competition, entrepreneurialism and celebrity. The early mantra of Facebook, “Move fast and break things,” catches that ethos.

It is perhaps important to note that neo-liberalism has very little in common with ordinary uses of “liberal” as in the liberal vs. conservative binary. It’s most of all an economic thing, one that sees a free, unregulated market as the decider, and generation of wealth as the primary social good.

Is there any connection to church world? It occurs to me is that the neo-liberal period tracks well with the emergence and ascendency of what we came to know as “the mega-church.” Large, non-denominational churches, located in office park-like settings or alongside freeways, configured like movie theaters, led by entrepreneurial preachers, employing new digital technology.

It seems no accident that mega-churches emerged in the ne0-liberal era.

The mega-church made church “market-driven.” The church that grows largest and fastest wins. Bill Hybels, the founder of one of the earliest and, for a time, largest, Willow Creek Church in a Chicago suburb, began by going door-to-door and asking people what they wanted from a church. He assessed the market and built a church that responded to it. Willow Creek was famously “seeker friendly.”

Prior to this, there had been a de-facto religious establishment built around denominations that came from western Europe. It was a controlled market. People were likely to go to the church that their parents or grandparents went to, be it Presbyterian, Congregational, Methodist, Episcopalian, Lutheran or any of a half-dozen more. For the most part these denominations did not encourage entrepreneurs or innovators; they wanted “team players.”

In the post-60’s period ecclesial borders opened up as people became much freer about switching churches, denominations and “church shopping.” People were motivated less by a sense of obligation (to history, theology, tradition or family) and more by motivation (what speaks to me, what works for me) in their choice of church or other religious experience. The megas and their entrepreneurial pastors/ preachers were ready to respond to the shift from obligation to motivation.

As with neo-liberalism, technological innovation has also been a hand-maiden, if not a driver, of the whole project. By and large, mega-churches were early adopters of digital technology (on-line connecting, data tracking, marketing, screens, videos, lights, cameras) while the established churches, later called “mainline,” were slow and often clumsy in their use of such technologies, if they tried them at all.

And as with the world of the celebrity or “cowboy” CEO of neo-liberalism, so the mega-church fostered celebrity pastors, with churches built around the personality and charisma of one, almost always, male person.

Now as neo-liberalism has fractured under the press of foreign adventures, uncontrolled immigration, the Great Recession, and a populist/ nationalist backlash, concurrently the megas have struggled. Bill Hybels was accused of affairs with church staff and members. Here in Seattle the once ascendent Mars Hill of Mark Driscoll crashed amid accusations of abuse of authority, and coercion of staff and church members. These stories have become increasingly common in the mega-church world where there isn’t much to check a celebrity pastor/ preacher.

Does all this suggest there will be a return to the traditional denominational churches? Probably not. Not any more than Biden was able to resurrect the New Deal. Politically, we seem to be in the grasp of a mean-spirited populism. And for the churches, there is disaffiliation (the “Nones”), distrust combined with disinterest. That’s not the whole story of course. About 20% of these historic churches continue to be healthy and vital, some even thriving. But they are the exceptions to the rule. Their success is usually attributable to gifted clergy and lay leadership, and a clear sense of identity and purpose.

The megas, like neo-liberalism, did some things right. But by rendering religion another market-driven experience, something was distorted, if not lost. Almost by definition, religion cannot make the customer king. That job is already taken. God?

Will the mega-churches, which rose alongside the neo-liberal political and economic order, now follow that order in its decline? My guess is “yes,” although some form and expressions of this phenomenon will be with us for a long time. But again, I don’t think that necessarily translates to a return to more traditional, less personality-driven churches. It may just translate to more disillusioned, dis-connected people in a society so desperately in need of trustworthy connections and institutions.

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized