Last Wednesday night I sat around a table with a group of mostly younger adults. We meet each week for my churches' "Faith on Tap" program, a spirituality discussion group held at a local pub. We were talking about a new advertising campaign that our denomination, the United Church of Christ, launched in Tampa this summer. It's message is simple: Jesus didn't reject people. Neither do we.
I had preached the previous Sunday about the bittersweet feelings I had felt seeing banners with this message in a place not so far where I grew up. I felt both hope for the LGBT youth who might see them and recognize God's love for them, and pain for the fact a church sign proclaiming that welcome was so rare that it took me by surprise.
Those gathered around the table shared their experiences, too. They shared that when peers heard they attended church, they often reacted negatively. Their friends often assumed that Christian faith meant disregard for the rights of women and LGBT people, rejection of the idea of evolution and acceptance of biblical inerrancy. It came as a surprise to many, they found, that church could be a place where both nuance and questions were welcomed.
We wondered together why the voices of fundamentalist Christians so often overshadowed those of members of moderate and progressive denominations. We finally agreed on the sad reality of the mainline church (Episcopalians, United Methodists, the UCC, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA) and others) in American public opinion: We have a public relations problem.
Now, let me clear that when I say that I am not reducing the Gospel to something that should be commoditized and sold like everything else in American culture. (Though heaven knows it has been.) I am instead saying that evangelism, which in the best sense of the word is not conversion but instead the proclamation of good news to those who need it the most, has by and large become associated with fundamentalists. What should be a liberating message of justice and hope and healing has instead become commonly understood as one of exclusion and small-mindedness.
This is not just the result of well-funded and energetic outreach by newer, more fundamentalist, denominations. It is also the result of our own complacency and lukewarmness. The decline of the mainline church was not brought about by the hand of American culture or growing megachurches. It was brought about by our own lack of courage and lack of humility. We were simultaneously too scared to be prophetic, and yet too sure that we were "too big to fail." It was a deadly combination.
I do not believe that the mainline is bound to die. Not yet, anyway. But I think that in many ways we are on critical care. I don't see the renewal of the mainline as a desire for a return to greater numbers. (Though I do think a radical renewal of the church would generate more people in the pews.) Instead, I see it as working for renewed vitality and relevance in a culture that is, and has been, constantly changing.
We have a ways to go. In late June I stood in the gallery of the New York Senate along with clergy from other mainline denominations and watched equal marriage become a reality. We had lobbied as clergy for this civil right because we believe our faith teaches us that God's children deserve equal rights. That night we went to a victory party in Albany where the DJ grabbed a mic and proclaimed how happy he was that the Senate had "pissed off all the Christians" that day.
At first I was angry. I had fought alongside many other clergy for this victory, and his attack felt unfair. But then I realized that the fault wasn't with the DJ. It was with those of us in the mainline who have been too reluctant to proclaim our beliefs with a voice loud enough to counter a voice of exclusion, intolerance and inerrancy coming from other churches. Right there, in the midst of great joy, I felt the painful reality of being a part of an institution that is trying to regain relevancy.
I read recently that 91 percent of young adults view the church as "anti-homosexual." I also read that 65 percent of college freshman who entered in 2010 support same-sex marriage. If this is true, why would any young adult want to join an institution that they perceive as being on the wrong side of the greatest civil rights issue of their day? And the inclusion of LGBT people is simply a lens through which to view the church's relevance on many levels.
In my ministry I often meet people who have left the churches of their upbringing. They almost invariably tell me about some past pain or rejection that they experienced in Christ's name. I realize now that there are two faults there. The first is the original action that hurt them. The second is the fact that no other church ever came along and told them that what was done to them was not God's will.
We have too often missed our call to be a place not only of welcome, but also of justice and healing. We have too often been the churches who, instead of "letting our light shine," have "hidden it under a bushel basket." We can change that, but it will mean a radical act of stepping out of our comfort zones and embracing a world where the church can no longer take its relevance for granted.
The challenge for renewing the mainline is regaining relevancy with a generation that rejects hypocrisy and intolerance and craves a place that welcomes those with questions and doubt. I've never believed that the decline of Christendom necessarily had to mean the decline of the church. If anything, this could be the birth of a new reformation in which we are freed to be truer to the Gospel than ever. And the mainline churches can lead the way. But first we are going to have to learn the art of proclamation again. Otherwise we will continue to be white noise in a world inundated with thunderously alienating religious voices.
Follow Rev. Emily C. Heath on Twitter: www.twitter.com/calledoutrev
Jonathan Merritt: The Uncertain Future of Mainline Christianity
Mainline Protestant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The New (Evangelical) Mainline | Christianity Today | A Magazine of ...
I must admit that there are exceptions to both, but conservatives believe that God is real and personal, and not simply some vague being or force for "good" and consequently we serve out of love and joy.
Progressives have no basis for what they believe, for they have made the Bible into mere comments on what humans have thought God might be like or attempts to explain their spiritual experiences. I have an idea of what you believe, and what you strive for, but I do not know how they are connected.
I think that it takes an extraordinary amount of faith, and a certain lack of rational processing, to believe that something came out of nothing. It takes even more faith to believe (as one must if there is no Creator) that we human beings are the products of an enormous series of random events - one accident after another - and yet that we have inherent worth and inalienable rights. If we are nothing but the products of blind chance and survival of the fittest, then what is there to stop me (or you, if you are wilier and faster) from stealing from you, oppressing you, bribing others to advance myself, or even killing those who are in the way of what I want? There may be a degree of enlightened self-interest in my moderating my selfishness with the hope that others will as well - but there is no inherent reason for me not to be as selfish as my wit and strength allow.
I suspect that many would rather believe anything, however illogical, than that there is God who knows how best they ought to live.
- Hebrews 10:10 ESV
WIN a Caring Cross Handmade in Bethlehem
http://networkedblogs.com/pPEPn
I'm not sure what to make of it.
Historically, the mainlines had a 40% market share among church goers. They now hover at 16% (while evangelicals are 25% and Catholics 24% according to a recent Pew Survey). Maybe it was entitlement that caused the mainlines to slack. Maybe it was the silence during the Vietnam era where the church remained silent (with a few exceptions) on the marriage of politics, business, and the military industrial complex. Whatever it was, the voice of justice, welcome, and hospitality have been drowned out or lost among the mainline.
A great new book is out that seems to go along with what Emily is saying from the Barna Group: http://global.christianpost.com/news/church-dropouts-why-are-young-people-skipping-out-on-church-57853/
The end is not near for the mainline, it's only the beginning of the comeback.
Wait a minute - isn't God "almighty" anymore? If "what was done to them was not God's will," then why did God ever let it happen in the first place? How could it happen at all?
For some reason the "mainline" believers always seem to prefer to blame Those Other Churches for their loss of prestige and popularity. They never want to address the possibility that maybe their whole belief system never made much sense in the first place.
And has the Book of Leviticus or any other "unprogressive" section of the "Holy Bible" ever lost its "Holy" place and status? Of course not.
Yes, because the mass media works 24/7 to promote that image. And far too many people can't imagine a world beyond the one they receive from radio, TV, and movies.
Some of the greatest minds in history have been Christians, so do not allow your desire to be free of God to blind you to the reality of intelligent, informed, and thinking biblical Christians.
As your article hints, you think Christianity is suffering from exclusion-ism - and young people don't feel the need to be exclusive in the old fashioned religious way anymore.
Ages ago, there was no voice of reason and experience available to young people to counter-balance the small-mindedness of people who rejected "that other congregation" or "those people". But today, there's the internet and cell-phones with video capabilities. Young people CAN see the horrors of exclusionism in the suicide bombings in the middle east, and anyone with a little historical curiosity can find out about the IRA, the KKK, etc.
Young people who have been taught the benefits and needs of living in an inclusive society will see this - and will rather not observe the differences in the first place than pretend to accommodate them - because not recognizing the differences is so much easier and saner.
So, as long as religion depends on divisiveness - Evangelicals vs. Baptists vs. Lutherns vs. Catholics vs. Orthodox vs. Muslim vs. Jewish vs. Hindu - it's going to have an intrinsic barrier to adoption by people who see that divisiveness as being an inherent evil.
I applaud your church if it is all-inclusive and aims to make people feel good about themselves; however, it's simply unfortunate that it must be done through the lens of the supernatural.
I, too, think it's sad that American Christianity's poster child is a white evangelical, for that is not representative of everyone. I will admit I find it difficult to be a progressive "loud voice," because I fear that people in my background (including my family) would probably think I have fallen away from the faith (or, rather, never a "true believer") if they knew what I now believe. Thanks for giving me some affirmation.
But Christianity's biggest "PR Problem" if you will, is that no-one, outside of the complete-whack-job category of Christians believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis anymore. By now, reason, facts, and science have filled in too many blanks in our old ignorance, AND they found the bones.
So once you don't have the talking snake, the neon "do not eat" hand pointing at the the magical fruit-tree, the seduction of Eve (or Yves, depending on the translator's orientation and prejudices) or the Real Dogmatic Biggie, The Fall of Man that results, there's no longer a need for a "savior" or any other human sacrifice to save anyone who flatters him/her/it/them appropriately (with the inevitable contractual fine print of course). So the whole dogma crumbles.
No Fall - No Redemption Needed. Big Problem. I think we can just call the more liberally oriented social constructs that Christian churches are evolving toward (hopefully) the "nice-people club."
But of course whatever we call them, they need to stay out of governments, private homes, science classrooms, wombs, and so on. And they should pay taxes like all "for profit" ventures.
Thank you.
And finally, I would point out that religion is--first and foremost--an industry, employing hundreds of thousands of people around the world. Whenever the roof over one's head, the food on one's table enters the picture, everything changes. Like all institutions, the one and ONLY objective of religious institutions is self-preservation. It informs their every action--including writing fluff pieces like this one...