A churchless faith

I am indebted to a good friend of mine for telling me about a guy called Alan Jamieson, who has done extensive research into the process people go through when they leave evangelical pentecostal/charismatic churches in New Zealand. Alan is a pastor and a sociologist. His PhD, submitted in 1998, is titled "A Churchless Faith. Faith outside the Evangelical Pentecostal/Charismatic church of New Zealand". He has done much more research into these areas and other Christian-related issues since then, and it seems that he is supported financially in this work by the Portland Research Trust. Alan Jamieson, and a friend of his, also maintain a blog, called "Prodigal Kiwi(s) Blog". Alan has also written several books - his PhD was published as "A churchless faith". But he has written several other books since then. They are listed on the blog homepage.

I have just begun reading Alan's PhD and recommend it. Firstly, it is an example of what can be produced when someone does real sociological research into people leaving a community; it is not the pseudo-sociology produced by Moojan Momen in his "Apostasy" article. And, interestingly, for the first three years that Alan did the research, he was a pastor at a large evangelical charismatic church. This did not stop him from producing truly academic work. Another contrast with Moojan's article is that Alan carried out actual interviews with 108 leave-takers, listening to them sympathically and basing his results on what they said. The result is very interesting indeed; particularly, when one compares their stories and situations with those that unenrolled Baha'is and ex-Baha'is have been through.

I have not read the PhD right through yet, but have had a look to get the gist of it. In the Introduction, Alan points out that, although the evangelical Pentecostal/charismatic churches (EPC) are the fastest growing of the Christian churches, at the same time, they are also losing about 10% of their followers per annum (through the 1990s, when this research was done). These are called the 'back door losses' (p16) and the research is focused on who these people are and why they are leaving. With regard to research done in the area of disaffiliation, Alan points out that:

"the majority of disaffiliation research from any religious group has been drawn from census and survey data. There is little evidence of qualitative research focused on the methods of face-to-face interviews and participant observation. This research therefore set out to open up the understandings of the leavers from this growing stream of the Christian church - the evangelical Pentecostal and charismatic churches by the use of qualitative research." p17

Alan interviewed 54 'informed insiders'. These were pastors and counsellors in the church who had dealt with leave-takers as part of their work, as well as some lecturers in theological colleges and universities(p20). Alan was keen to establish what these insiders believed were the reasons why people left church. He also explains that previous research puts those leaving church into three categories: those on the fringe, the young, and those linked to church for a short period of time. Alan's research revealed that, of the 108 leave-takers he spoke to, the majority were middle aged (between 35 and 45 years), had been involved in the church for a long time (an average of 15.8 years over all interviewees) and had been highly committed to it(p19). All interviewees had made adult decisions to join the church; they were not brought up in it(p26). Many were married, well educated and had stable work. Moreover -

"the majority of these leavers are not moving to a position of apostasy, (i.e. no longer holding to a Christian faith) but like Stuart and Michelle are retaining their faith while leaving the church. They are also, like Stuart and Michelle, unlikely to return to an evangelical or Pentecostal/charismatic church again. This raises an interesting question - what characterises the post-church faith of these leavers? This is a question upon which the research focuses much of its attention..." (p33)

Using categories developed in James Fowler's faith development theory as a guide (ch4), Alan looks at the faith journey the leave-takers took after leaving the church. Of the 108 interviewed, 8 ceased to believe in the teachings of the Christian church. This left 100 interviewees, which Alan divided into four categories:

• Chapter 6: Displaced followers (19 interviewees): these were those who, after leaving, did not question the faith assumptions they held when attending church. They remained believers and used support systems outside the church to sustain them.
• Chapter 7: Reflexive exiles (32 interviewees): these were those who, after leaving, questioned the faith assumptions they held when attending church.
• Chapter 8: Transitional explorers (19 interviewees): these were those who, through allowing doubt, deconstructed their old faith and then built a new self-owned one using old and new elements.
• Chapter 9: Integrated way-finders (30 interviewees): these were those who critically assessed their beliefs and, as a result, developed integrated and committed faith positions; such people were accepting of other beliefs.

Chapter 10 looks at the faith-related groups that the leave-takers participated in after leaving church. Some created and/or participated in devotional and discussion groups, which had a significant influence on the process they went through to find their feet again. Chapter 11 looks at the leave-taking in the light of macro issues such as secularisation, modernism and postmodernism.

The work is full of quotes from the leave-takers, which make enlightening reading for those interested in what a person goes through when they leave a faith community, voluntarily or forcibly. The rawness of the accounts gives the lie to those who say that leaving the Baha'i community is just 'a voluntary act', 'not a punishment'.

"Stephen Crittenden [interviewer]: Two of the most interesting broad ideas that you speak about are the idea of the church as a voluntary society that people can leave these days if they don't agree. Could you expand on that a bit?

Geoffrey Robinson: Well one of the problems is that a whole lot of people do leave the church; we know that, in vast numbers people have left the church. One unfortunate side effect of that is that the force for change has left the church...”

Quoted on Prodigal Kiwi, "Bringing Change"

Anna's presentation - I'm sure you'll agree

I said in my last blog entry that I must do an entry on Anna's presentation. As I understand it, the presentation is the principal teaching resource that Baha'is use now to introduce the faith to non-Baha'is. Given this, you'd expect that there'd be a lively discussion among the Baha'is about the content of the presentation, for this document represents the faith for thousands across the globe on a weekly basis; and you'd expect that it would matter to Baha'is that the presentation represent the faith as well as possible. But the Baha'i community isn't like most other communities with a shared interest; the Baha'i community doesn't have such conversations, which leaves those not concerned about being disenrolled to raise matters that others feel they cannot.

If you type "Anna's presentation" into Google, you'll find the first link is to "Anna's Presentation Booklet (Short) PDF" on the website slideshare.net. This document is full of errors and should be disregarded. Other links to .pdf files send you to documents with the text of the presentation laid up with graphics. The only full text of the presentation as it appears in Ruhi Book 6, that I know of, can be found on the UK Baha'i site here. The beauty of this version is that it contains not only the text of the presentation but also the instructions that the Baha'i must follow when making the presentation.

The presentation is made up of eight sections. In my view, the presentation is crammed full of far too much information for a person to take in all at once. It attempts to cover all of the following topics: the relationship between God and humanity; the concept of 'manifestation'; the oneness of humanity; elimination of prejudice; short biography of Baha'u'llah, focusing on his suffering and the influence of his person; the Bab; Abdu'l-Baha and the covenant; the laws, mentioning specifically that they are founded on love, the short obligatory prayer, prohibition on backbiting and calumny, prohibition on alcohol and drugs, and the requirement to educate children; and the three participants in the work of the Cause - individuals, communities and institutions. In addition to this, the seeker is asked to memorise two prayers - Remover of difficulties and the short obligatory prayer - and the text goes over several other topics incidentally along the way.

I'm not going to go into detail about what is said in the presentation for, having written short introductions about the faith myself, I know that when you have to be short, you end up having to be arbitrary in what you include and how you summarise complex concepts. But there are a few things I will mention because I think they are glaring issues with the content.

First, in Section 1, the text says: "Baha'u'llah teaches Us that God is unknowable in His Essence. This means that we should not make images of God in our mind, thinking of Him, for example, as a man." (I think the capital on "Us" is just a mistake.) The words "this means" suggests that the second sentence explains the first. Well, it manifestly does not. At best, not imagining God may be an aspect of God's unknowability; but I wouldn't have picked it as one to emphasise in an introductory presentation. Perhaps the agenda here is to underscore the idea that God's unknowability gets away from the feminist critique that God is usually depicted as male. In any case, the assertion that we should not hold an image of God as male in our minds would, I suggest, rule out referring to God as "He" and "Him", which this presentation does throughout.

The second glaring issue comes in Section 3, which covers Baha'u'llah's sufferings. The text says: "He [Baha'u'llah] was exiled four times from land to land, finally being sent to the Prison City of 'Akka in the Ottoman Empire. So intense were His sufferings there that He has referred to 'Akka as the "Most Great Prison". In one of His Tablets, we read: 'Remember My days during thy days, and My distress and banishment in this remote prison.'" This is a straight error of history. The words "remote prison" refer to the city of Edirne/Adrianople and not to Akka. The quote is, of course, from the Arabic Tablet of Ahmad, which was written in Edirne; Baha'u'llah had not at that time been exiled to Akka. Although Baha'u'llah thought of Edirne as a prison, most seekers would not think that Baha'u'llah was 'imprisoned' during his four-year stay in that city. This subtlety would need explaining to a seeker.

The last matter about content that I wanted to mention relates to Section 4, the section on the Bab. In my view, it is a glaring omission that this section does not mention the analogy between the Bab and John the Baptist. Baha'u'llah makes this analogy in many places in his writings, particularly when he is addressing Christians. From what I can make out, the assumption with the presentation is that the audience is Christian, or at least from a Christian country, in which case the analogy would make understanding the role of the Bab readily accessible.

If this presentation was the brain child of an innovative believer from townsville, USA, I would be the last to criticise it and would compliment the author on the initiative. But this document is authorised and promulgated by the world's Baha'i institutions. The least you'd expect is that its content would be accurate, adequate and appropriate. But no; and this is what you get when Baha'is are too scared to discuss things openly for fear of disenrolment. Now that the House has been seen to back Ruhi Book 6 in its current form, the infallibility principle makes it difficult for such mistakes to be corrected.

But my greatest misgivings about Anna's presentation lie in another area. The text contains several statements that, in my view, are characteristic of selling techniques, and while these may be morally acceptable in the sphere of selling insurance and vacuum cleaners, in my view they are straight out manipulation in the sphere of teaching the faith. These statements include:

• "Baha'u'llah passed away in 1892. His Shrine, which we consider the Holiest Spot on earth, is located near the city of 'Akka. Here are some postcards I have of the entrance to the Shrine and the gardens surrounding it. You don't know how much I would like to go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I hope, someday, you will be able to do so as well."
• "You know, after I reflected on this great commandment, I decided to do something about it. So I hold a Baha'i children's class with a friend once every week and we have seventeen students. I would love to invite you to come and help us with our class. Do you have time this Saturday afternoon?"
• "I am sure you are aware that I am inviting you to join a religion and not just accept a collection of nice ideals."
• "We have already spoken about the supreme institution, which is the Universal House of Justice. In each country, Bahá'ís select once a year the National Spiritual Assembly, and in each locality, the Local Spiritual Assembly. This is the institution that you will get to know the soonest."

I did a brief search on Google for selling techniques and found a very good site about the subject, Pro Sales Guide. The site has a page that discusses the presumptive close. Essentially, this technique entails never asking for something directly but making it seem to the other person that you expect them to give it. The article gives two examples. First, extracting the social security number from someone:

Me: "OK, what's your address?"
Customer: "123 Fake Street."
Me: "How much would you say your house is worth?"
Customer: "$53"
Me: "And your birthdate?"
Customer: "Feb. 29, 1971."
Me: "And your soc?"

The article explains that you make it seem like it's no big deal to ask for the social security number and have it provided, and you come over like a professional who does this sort of thing all the time. The other example the article gives is asking someone out on a date: "Rather than, 'Uh, do you want to, I don't know, go out sometime?' you say 'Let's go to the movies tonight' or even 'I want to take you out this weekend.'"

"By asking a yes-or-no question, you're giving a person an out. If you tell them something, the natural reaction would be 'OK.' If someone really doesn't want to do something, they'll say no regardless, but for those unsure of what they want to do, you're much more likely to get a positive response, especially if you seem confident in doing so."

The quotes from Anna's presentation that I cite above appear to me to use this technique in varying degrees - never asking for something directly but making it seem to the other person that you expect them to give it:

• "You don't know how much I would like to go on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. I hope, someday, you will be able to do so as well."
• "I would love to invite you to come and help us with our class. Do you have time this Saturday afternoon?" (Although this asks a yes-no question, it is the wrong question. Even if the person is free on Saturday, doesn't mean they want to participate in children's classes.)
• "I am sure you are aware that I am inviting you to join a religion and not just accept a collection of nice ideals."
• "... the Local Spiritual Assembly. This is the institution that you will get to know the soonest."

In addition to the above, there are several "I'm sure you'll agree" type statements.

It seems to me that the goal here is to draw in anyone undecided enough not to say 'no'. It'll get declarations, but will it get believers?