Bridging the Gulf: David, Goliath, & Us

One of the most pressing challenges facing mainline churches and pastors is to bridge the gap between scripture and our modern world.  The story of Goliath in I Samuel 17, for example, can be easily dismissed as at best irrelevant to our modern world and at worst as an example of the violent God of the Old Testament.  Thoughtful Jewish and Christian readers will have trouble discovering a spiritual message in the story, which seems to highlight David's prowess as a warrior—and his cleverness.  There are obvious discrepancies between chapters 16 and 17, which to a modern reader are jarring.  The ancient writer seems not have been even a good story teller.  Now, a close study of the chapter relying on commentaries and other scholarly aids, will clear up some of these issues, but for the average reader of the Bible such academic helps do not offer a satisfying means for understanding the modern day relevance of the story of David and Goliath.

One obvious response, of course, is that there are relatively few "average readers" of the Bible in mainline churches, esp. of books like I Samuel.  Even then, a number of those readers would see the story of David and Goliath as being historical and therefore not necessarily in need of theological parsing.  Many others would simply shrug their shoulders thinking that if it is in the Bible then it must be OK.  So, why sweat it?

Well, for one thing the story offers an important example of "inversion," the idea that God turns things upside down for the sake of justice and the furthering of the divine will.  The paradigmatic story of inversion is the Exodus, a motif and paradigm that is repeated in other places in scripture.  More generally, the story of David and Goliath challenges us to appreciate the ways in which our religious fore bearers struggled to understand God's place in their world and lives.  We don't necessarily have to agree with their conclusions or feel comfortable with the blood and guts of the killing of Goliath, but their stories force us to rethink our understanding.  Brueggemann at least gets us started in our rethinking with his observation that, "The story [of David and Goliath] is also set as a paradigm of bold faith in an arena of fear, threat, and defiance."

Short of chucking the Bible, including David and Goliath, entirely, mainline churches need to make a priority of recovering for the whole church the meaning of even the obscure corners of the Bible.  As importantly, mainline congregations need to work overtime at reclaiming a concern for understanding the Bible as a living document.  This is not an easy task in our multi-focused, multi-tasking world where anything "old" is treated with suspicion.  A daunting task - but an exciting one as well for those who take it on.

The Price of Justice

As has been widely reported both in the U.S. and overseas, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), meeting in Detroit, has just approved two motions that take a large step toward finally resolving the decades long brawl over homosexuality.  First, it voted to change the wording of the Book of Order, our constitution, to read that, “marriage involves a unique commitment between two people, traditionally a man and a woman.”  The vote was 429 (71%) in favor and 175 opposed, a surprisingly large margin given the tumultuous history of the issue—and apparently an artifact of the continuing departure of the losers.  This decision must now be ratified by the presbyteries, and there is a widespread sense that the requisite majority will do so.  The General Assembly also voted to allow pastors residing in states where same-sex marriage is legal to conduct such marriages at their discretion and with the permission of the session (governing board) of the congregation they serve.

The reaction from the right has been as predictable as it is swift (see here and here for examples).  Inevitably, PC(USA) is going to lose still more congregations as those who oppose simple justice for the LGBT community hasten into their ghetto for an illusive safety from the swelling currents of our age.  They or their heirs only postpone the inevitable as the whole issue will follow them into that ghetto where over time some will have a change of heart and begin again to challenge the ghetto's values and interpretations of scripture.

For liberal evangelicals the best and most faithful interpretation of scripture is always the one that affirms the principle that God acts, "with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth" and "takes delight" in these things (Jeremiah 9:23-25).  Three generations ago, the Spirit of God inflamed us with a desire for racial justice; two generations ago it was gender justice; and in this generation it is sexual justice.   The rapidity with which the nation is embracing equality for the LGBT community is heartening and even suggests that there is a certain momentum that has been gained in the struggle for justice and equality for all.  It would be naïve, of course, to think that this is the last battle that is going to have to be fought in the churches or in the nation, but it is good to see that justice does tend to prevail even if it has its price. The turmoil, the heated debates and anger, and the loss of more and more conservative evangelical churches and members are a part of that price.  

PC(USA) in 20 Years - A Scenario

As reported in my  recent post, "Reconfiguring the Mainline?," there is a recent trend in the Presbyterian Church (USA) in which its traditional congregations are continuing to decline in numbers but it is adding an impressive number of affiliated new worshipping communities (NWCs).  Working from the numbers given there, we can assume that the PC(USA) might well continue to lose traditional congregations at a rate of 50-100 a year over the next twenty years, leaving it with perhaps some like 8,000 old-style churches by the year 2034.  Given historical trends, it might even be optimistic to guesstimate the denomination still having 8,000 churches in twenty years.

At the same time, we might suppose that the denomination continues to add NWCs at a rate of about 25 to 50 or so a year.  In order to maintain that rate, many more will have to be actually formed because we can safely assume that individual NWCs will come and go at a fairly fast rate, many of them lasting less than five years and not so many lasting a decade or more.  By 2034 according to this scenario there would be as many as 2,000 NWCs affiliated with the denomination.  That also may be too optimistic, but no one can really say with any certainty one way or the other.  In any event, it is possible that PC(USA) still will have 10,000 or so "congregations" in twenty years but in a new configuration that includes a good number of non-traditional NWCs.

One other thing to consider is that some of the NWCs may "evolve" toward a more traditional congregational structure if they survive their first few years—become, that is, hybrids of different sorts, partly unconventional and partly conventional.  It is also entirely possible that some existing churches will reinvent themselves in innovative ways that will make them hybrids as well.  So, by 2034, there could be three broad categories of Presbyterian churches, old-style, new-style, and hybrid.  the whole denomination could thus conceivably take on the dual aspects of being an innovative, fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants movement and a more stable institutional organization.

If something like this happens, how will it work?  Will presbyteries embrace the NWCs or will they ignore them?  Will the denomination have to redefine the office of teaching elder (clergy) to include individuals who have unconventional theological training but function has pastors in NWCs?  Who will get to vote in presbyteries and in General Assembly?  Will it matter?  How will theological education be structured and provided?  These are only a few of the institutional questions that will have to be faced if the NWC movement really does begin to take hold.

More generally, will the NWCs have become the wave of the future by 2034, or will they remain merely an auxiliary curiosity?  Or will they already be a distant memory, a might-have-been that never came to fruition?  My own sense is that the future of PC(USA) lies in its ability to transition from predominantly old-style congregations to encompassing a wide variety of innovative worshipping communities stimulating the denomination with new ideas, approaches, and styles.  The old-style churches will provide stability.  The new-style ones will give it life.  The hybrids will combine the best (and worst?) of the two in interesting and hopeful ways.  And the Spirit will continue to move.

Reconfiguring the Mainline?

According to a Christian Post news posting entitled, "PCUSA Decline in Churches, Members Continued in 2013," Presbyterian Church (USA) denominational statistics continue to look grim. The generations long decline of mainline Presbyterianism seems to be continuing unabated.  A second look, however, hints that things may not be quite as dire as the numbers suggest and that something very interesting could be happening.  The article notes that the denomination lost some 224 churches of which148 left PC(USA) and the remaining 76 were dissolved.  It also notes, however, that some 200 "new worshipping communities" (NWCs) have been formed in the last two years under the denomination's 1001 Worshipping Communities initiative.  These communities and those participating in them were not counted in the official statistics for 2013.

If we do a little guesstimating of our own, it seems at least possible, maybe likely, that a transformation of sorts is taking place.  Setting aside the churches that left for other pastures, the actual loss of congregations to decline was only 76, which loss seems to be more than offset by the rate of growth of NWCs certainly in numbers of members as well as congregations.  What may be happening is that PC(USA) is trading in small, dying organized (old-fashioned) churches for innovative, experimental (new-fangled) communities that are more about creativity than Book of Order propriety.  Maybe.  Or maybe not.  The 1001 initiative could be a flash in the pan, a trendy fad of the moment.  It may, on the other hand, mark a new direction for at least part of the the Presbyterian Church, transforming it from an institution back into a movement. The bottom line is that whether or not something of a reconfiguration of PC(USA) churches is taking place this is the sort of thing that needs to happen—must happen.  And it looks like there is the potential for it actually happening.

Another Context for "Doing Theology"

If the internet provides one crucial context for theological reflection today (as I argued here), then a recent posting by Jay Parini entitled, "Why Vermont is not Godless," suggests another obvious but potent context, the decline of religiosity as opposed to spirituality. In a previous posting (here), I defined spirituality as an inner state and religiosity as being a set of practices.  We feel spiritual; we do religion.  It's an oversimplification to be sure.  Until relatively recently, in any event, the church was the key social and cultural context within which the great majority of theological reflection took place.  In Vermont apparently that is no longer the case.  Presumably, it is also no longer the case in New Zealand (see here).

What seems to be happening is that we are returning to something like the state of the earliest church in the time of the Roman Empire when there was a hodge lodge of religious thinking going on without an effective central agency to exercise control over it.  In the churches themselves, there was a whole range of theological responses to the person of Christ, which flourished for centuries before the Bishop of Rome gained some control of the situation.  In Protestantism, we returned to a similar situation to a degree although most Protestant denominations have sought to exercise control over the range of "acceptable" theological reflection.  Now, control is gone.  It is certainly gone in mainline American denominations such as the PC(USA), which has been one reason many evangelical congregations have fled for places where control remains an ideal.

For those who do not concern themselves primarily with the institutional maintenance of existing congregations and denominations, this is an exciting time.  For those tasked with that maintenance it is a scary, anxious time.

Unity is Not That Simple

In a posting entitled, "Unity not Uniformity in Post-Christendom," blogger John Vest offers a solution to the ongoing decline of American churches and denominations, which is to discover a new mentality that values a deeper unity in our diversity.  As he sees it, all of our denominations continue to be infected with a Christendom mentality that is the legacy of our past.  When Christianity became the Empire's state religion, theological uniformity of belief became a driving concern  of the imperial government, and we have been infected by that concern ever since.  In the U.S., each denomination has continued to insist on uniformity within its fellowship, which has brought us to the era of decline that is our current state.

Writing as a Presbyterian, Vest suggests a denomination like the Presbyterian Church (USA), "could reinvent itself as a post-Christendom denomination by abandoning its insistence on uniformity. We could develop a polity that allowed conservative and progressive churches to coexist with different beliefs and practices. We could discover and articulate what unites us without having to impose uniformity. This would be a post-Christendom move."

There is a serious problem with Vest's suggestion.  For those who feel a deep concern for theological uniformity, which they would call "integrity" rather than "uniformity," the demand for an end to a shared commitment to a core set of theological principles is itself the imposition of a liberal uniformity on them.  It is liberals who want to "coexist," and from a traditional perspective that is exactly "the problem with liberals": they are seen by many traditionalists as constantly compromising those things that are most important and precious.  The call for non-conformity, then, is itself a demand for conformity.  Vest is exactly right when he notes that all of our American denominations have inherited the DNA of Christendom.  It is so deeply rooted in us that we can't escape its reality.

The "way out" is not unity.  We are different.  We will remain different.  The way out is for churches of all stripes to discover ways to reconnect themselves with the Spirit as best as they can and to pursue their ministries and fellowship in as Christ-like a manner as possible.  For progressive, we simply need to accept the reality that a large number of churches and denominations are going to continue to demand that we conform to their theologies.  Our "problem" of course is that even if we were to choose one of the more traditional theologies, a hundred other more traditionalist groups, churches, and denominations would still condemn us for not adhering to their theology.  Unity just isn't going to happen however we slice it.

Instead, we need to get on with the business of being the most faithful and spiritually alive churches that we can be and leave unity to that day when the Kingdom dawns.

Two Separate Worlds

In a blog entry posted back April, Andrew Webb listed, "13 Differences Between the PCA and the PCUSA," that is between the Presbyterian Church in America and the Presbyterian Church (USA).  Writing as a member of the PCA, he presents a fair assessment of those differences, and in them there is little that surprises anyone who knows at least something about these two intensely different Presbyterian denominations.  The list includes the following:

• PC(USA) ordains women and the PCA does not;
• PCA adheres to biblical literalism and the PC(USA) does not;
• PCA is "pro-life" and PC(USA) is "pro-choice";
• PCA considers homosexuality a sin and the PC(USA) does not;
• PCA adheres to a traditionalist Reformed theology and the PC(USA) does not;
• PCA is committed to evangelism and the PC(USA) is not;
• PC(USA) generally places more authority in the higher councils of the church while PCA is more grassroots; and
• PC(USA) accepts theistic evolution while the PCA does not.

There are other points of comparison, but these are the major ones.  They point to the undeniable fact that these two denominations live in very different faith worlds.  From the perspective of most of us in the PC(USA), for example, ordaining women and accepting the LGBT community are matters of simple, Christ-like justice.  Being "pro-choice" does not mean that somehow we are anti-life but that we are pro-women.  We are pro-life, which is about much more than abortion.  And so on down the list, which in all reflects a different set of values, attitudes, perspectives, and a different spirituality.

Webb does note that on a few of the differences there is some movement in the PCA toward the views held in the PC(USA), for example on evolution and in worship.  What he does not say is that in most of the differences between the two denominations, the PC(USA) is demonstrating a greater ability to adapt to changing social values and attitudes than the PCA, which is becoming more and more culturally isolated.  In a posting entitled "The Future of the PCA," conservative blogger Marshall C. St. John, makes that point and observes in some detail its significance, namely cultural isolation and inevitable statistical decline.  That decline set in 2008.  PCA apologists, of course, will argue that being culturally unpopular does not make its stands on the issues wrong, but equally of course it does not make them correct either.

A couple of thoughts: first, it really is better that we are two separate denominations.  We have relatively little in common in so many crucial ways, and about the best we can do with each other is exhibit some degree of tolerance of each other while equally believing that the "other" just doesn't get it when it comes to faithfully following Christ.  Second, perhaps in the larger scheme of things the reality of having two denominations so different at so many points is a strength rather than a weakness.  People in general are very different, and in faith as in everything else one size does not fit all.  This isn't a cause of celebration, but it does recognize the fact that the Spirit has to move in us where we are and in ways that we can hear.  It moves liberal Presbyterians in ways that conservative Presbyterians simply can't accept and vice versa, always pushing and prodding us in the direction of the Kingdom.  The Kingdom is not a race.  We all make it there or none of us make it.  Amen.

Thinking Beyond the Midterm Grade

In an editorial entitled, "Midterm exams," Presbyterian Outlook editor Jack Haberer grades the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s progress nationally between the 2012 and 2014 General Assembly meetings.  He gives the denomination a good grade for implementing GA policy and a poor grade for unity.  Yesterday, I looked at the grade he gave us for denominational unity, a "C-"; today, I would like to encourage us to think beyond his grading system entirely.

As we saw yesterday, the editorial argues that some of those leaving PC(USA) are doing so in ignorance of the fact that we are not as theologically liberal as they mistakenly think we are.  For example, only a little more than one clergy in ten believes other religions can lead to salvation.  The editorial apparently faults the whole denomination for not working hard enough to inform the misinformed of the real state of things.  Then, the editorial states, "And, while our efforts have been too tepid, too limp, the provocateurs — those who love to play beyond the edges of orthodoxy — use their blog pages and Facebook groups to proclaim their eccentric ideas and pet heresies, thereby reinforcing the negative assessments of the rest of us."  The editorial does not elaborate so we are left not quite sure who these "provocateurs" are or where the "edges of orthodoxy" might be.  Since the editorial focused on universalism, however, it seems that the "eccentric ideas and pet heresies" being expounded on the fringes of the denomination have to do with that doctrine.

There is, in any event, another way to look at supposedly unorthodox, eccentric, and heretical theological perspectives that is itself less provocative and points to the value of thinking "outside of the box" theologically in a time of rapid change when increasingly large numbers of Americans are rejecting the Christian religion out of hand.  Universalism provides an excellent example.  Let's start with the simple fact that most American Christians today are functional universalists. Reporting on research conducted in 2008 in a posting entitled, "Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life," the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life concludes that,

 A majority of all American Christians (52%) think that at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life. Indeed, among Christians who believe many religions can lead to eternal life, 80% name at least one non-Christian faith that can do so. These are among the key findings of a national survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life from July 31-Aug. 10, 2008, among 2,905 adults.

If these Pew findings are anywhere near correct, belief in universal salvation seems hardly eccentric.  It seems to have become in fact mainstream thinking among Christians.  Our Presbyterian "provocateurs," that is, are evidently working on ideas that reflect the thinking of the majority of American Christians, a majority that we can be reasonably sure will only grow with time.

Universalism may still stand beyond the pale of a traditional orthodoxy based on so-called literal readings of the Bible, but one of the running battles we fought as Presbyterians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was over the very issue of traditional orthodoxy.  We walked away from the idea that our denomination can or will enforce the twin doctrines of biblical literalism and traditional orthodoxy.  We are not literalists, and we encourage a diversity of theological thought.

Given all of this, those bloggers and Face bookers who supposedly stand at the edges of orthodoxy do  not seem to be so very far out on the fringe as we might mistakenly think.  They, furthermore, have an important role to play, which is to explore new ideas and find culturally relevant ways in which to express our faith.  In the Age of Science, it is important that we constantly explore in a positive way the relationship of faith and science.  In an age of increasingly secularity, we need to learn how to speak with the "nones" in ways that build bridges rather than walls.  In an age of increasing openness to those not like us, we need to learn to be comfortable with diversity.  We live in an age that shatters boxes as a matter of course, and it is vital for the sake of the good news that we proclaim to think "outside the box."

Since the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), we Christians have demonstrated an aptitude for adapting faith to culture as we seek the redemption of culture.  We speak from within the diverse cultures of the world so that we can communicate to them the message of Christ.  In a culture bent on change, we must embrace change.  We must risk—as previous generations have risked—losing the core of the good news for the sake of speaking about it.  To that end, we need a mix of conservatives who are always in danger of not going far enough and liberals who are always in danger of going too far.  Each have their place as we try again in our time and place to share what is precious to all of us, conservative and liberal alike.  In their day, the abolitionists were widely seen in the church to be provocateurs.  In their day, the advocates of  the full rights of women in the Presbyterian Church were considered by many to be provocateurs.  Those who have argued year after year for the rights of the LGBT community in the church are still considered by many to be provocateurs.  Each in their own time disturbed the peace of the church for the sake of the gospel.  They were the "reforming" part of "Reformed and always reforming."  Now, of course, not all provocateurs are reformers; some are just plain wrongheaded.  But, it is important for us to collectively decide over time who speaks for God's justice and who is just talky-talking.  It is our task, then, to discern anew the time we live in and how we can in the Spirit speak to and through our time.  Amen.

Rethinking the Midterm Grade

In an editorial entitled, "Midterm exams," Presbyterian Outlook editor Jack Haberer grades the Presbyterian Church (USA)'s progress nationally between the 2012 and 2014 General Assembly meetings.  He gives the denomination a good grade for implementing GA policy and a poor grade for unity.  His "C-" grade for unity is worth looking at in more detail.

While crediting the denomination for creating over 100 new, alternative worshipping communities in 2012, the editorial devotes much more of its attention to the significant statistical losses of members and churches during the year.  The rate  of "leakage" was almost staggering even for a denomination that has been declining statistically for decades.  In 2012, we saw over 100 churches leave for other denominations and lost over 100,000 members.

The editorial wants to "talk turkey about those losses," but it doesn't.  It never mentions who is actually leaving, namely our more conservative/evangelical brothers and sisters, or the reason why they are leaving, which is our collective decision to make room for the ordination of gays and homosexuals. Now, of course, they are not the only ones leaving, but the significant loss of members in 2012 followed hard on the heels of that decision in 2010.

Instead, the editorial blames at least some of this loss on ignorance of the real theological position of the denomination on, of all things, the question of universal salvation.  That is, many of those leaving think that the PC(USA) clergy believe that all religions can lead to salvation when only a small minority of 11% actually believe that.  The editorial admits that nearly half of our clergy reject the premise that only Christians can be saved and less than half affirm it, but somehow that seems not so bad compared to positively affirming that one can be saved through other religions—somehow.  And, supposedly, some of those leaving would stay if they knew the truth of our clergy's real position on universal salvation.

We need to be clear here.  In 2010 and 2011, Presbyterian clergy were just as "soft" on the traditional theological doctrine of exclusive salvation in Christ as they were in 2012.  Liberals with these beliefs have been around for a long time, but we did not see the sizable exodus in those years that took place in 2012.  So many churches left because we changed our ordination standards.  Universalism has nothing to do with anything.  It may be a contributing factor for some, but if in 2010 the presbyteries had voted against a change in ordination standards most of the churches that have left would still be with us, still fighting to prevent that decision.  They lost and they are leaving, and if we are going to "talk turkey" that is the bird we need to hunt.

In terms of the peace and unity of the denomination, then, we should probably give ourselves a slightly higher grade that the editorials' "C-".  A year after the 2012 General Assembly we are now a little more unified than we were and likely to find ourselves a bit less conflicted.  We may not like the way we are achieving peace and unity through departure rather than reconciliation, but the result is likely to be less distraction with highly controversial issues that do not significantly impact the daily life of our congregations.  Maybe we can even begin to devote the bulk of our national attention and energies to planting another 100 new worshipping communities in the coming twelve months and discovering new ways to turn around more of our old worshipping communities.  Maybe for the first time in a long, long time we can even moderate the bombast and breast-beating and devote more of our energy to being the church.

SBC Statistical Follow Up

Following up on yesterday's post (here) concerning the statistical membership decline in the Southern Baptist Convention,  Lifeway Research has just released its "Annual Church Profile" for the SBC for 2012.  As reflected in the title of a Baptist Press article entitled, "Churches increased in SBC in 2012; members, baptisms fell," the SBC statistics for membership, average attendance, baptisms and total giving all declined again for the sixth straight year.  Membership decline was only 0.7%, but worship attendance dropped by 3.1% and baptism by a still steeper 5.5% to the lowest level since 1948.  Only in the number of new churches, which rose by a modest 0.6%, did the SBC see positive growth.

Frank Page, SBC Executive Committee president, is reported in the article as saying, "When I first heard the report of our ACP, I said, 'God forgive us and God help us.' We are thankful for every person won to Christ and every person enrolled in Bible study and discipleship and involved in missions. We are thankful for the millions who are a part of worship in our Southern Baptist churches. However, my heart breaks when we realize the overall decline in our numbers."

If the Presbyterian Church (USA) experience is any measure,  continued decline gives birth to an unhappy brood of offspring—denial, fault-finding, anger, resignation, and then quiet acceptance of what seems to be the inescapable reality of decline.  Massive institutional inertia makes it very difficult for denominations to do anything truly effective to address decline.  But eventually some people in some places begin to think outside the box.

And that is when things get interesting—and hopeful.

When You Know Something Is Wrong

You know that there is something wrong when a leading voice in your denomination, one involved in church-based research, writes a blog post entitled, "A Humble Plea for Church Revitalization."  Dr. Thom S. Rainer, President of LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), recently posted a posting with that very title. He was previously the dean of the Billy Graham School of Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville and is also the founder of LifeWay Research, the research arm of the SBC.

In his posting, Dr. Rainer writes, "I cannot get away from the conviction. At times it seems as though I am consumed by it. And I don’t even know fully where it will lead. My burden to see struggling churches become turnaround churches grows daily. There are an estimated 100,000 churches in North America that would be deemed terminal by most pundits. There are another 100,000 to 200,000 that are very sick and could soon be on the deathwatch." He also states, "According to our estimates, only 15 percent of the Millennial generation, born 1980 to 2000, are Christians. We are losing our nation for Christ. In the meantime, hundreds of churches close each month. Many more are on the precipice of death."

It is, of course, not unusual in our day and age for national church leaders, especially those involved in church-based research, to write in this vein.  It is remarkable, however, when that church leader is a Southern Baptist.  For decades, the SBC was the engine that drove Protestant church growth in America, but beginning in 2006-2007 SBC membership has persistently declined year by year (see here).  It is still not as precipitous as that of the Presbyterian Church (USA), but it is decline, it persists, and it is forcing SBC leaders to discover the importance of church renewal.

In his posting, Rainer proposes a personal five point plan for moving forward. Number five states, "As much as possible, I will encourage good leaders to move into church revitalization. I fully understand why many leaders are not moving in that direction. There are many obstacles to overcome. Sometimes it’s just easier to start from scratch." One assumes that this point reflects the attitudes of many leaders in the SBC, which almost surely remains focused on their historical commitment to evangelism and statistical growth.  One of the challenges the SBC is going to face is getting its church leaders to focus effectively on local decline, emphasis on "effectively".  PC(USA) is still struggling, after six decades of decline, to get its local folks to focus on decline in ways that make a difference.

What I also suspect is that eventually Dr. Rainer is going to find is that local church decline is not a statistical issue.  It is a spiritual one.  It is not about evangelism as a project for converting the world to Christ.  It is about the inability of local church folks to share their faith with others in a way that spreads the good news about Christ and about their own church.  It is not about training local church leaders so much as it is inspiring local church followers with a more vital personal faith.

We Love Our Walls

The latest Presbyterian numbers are out (here).  In 2012, the Presbyterian Church (USA) recorded a 5.3% decline in membership from 1,952,287 in 2011 to 1,849,496 in 2012. The denomination organized 13 new churches, closed 86 churches, and dismissed 110 congregations to other denominations.  The total loss is on the high end.  In some "good years," it is half or less of 5.3%.  But, then, the loss of so many churches to other denominations was a significant factor last year.

It is a fair question to ask our evangelical sisters and brothers in those departing congregations how they intend to witness to Christ's love in an increasingly secular, religiously skeptical world when they can't even find ways to lovingly witness to people of faith who largely share their core values whatever the differences driven by the hot button issues.  As evangelicals across America continue to separate themselves from the rest of American society, they only serve to build the walls between themselves and the rest of society higher and thicker.  How will they ever meaningfully and effectively share God's love from behind those walls?

On the other hand, as I wrote a couple of posts back (here), it is an equally good question to ask of progressive and moderate Presbyterians, "When will we ever learn to share our faith in ways that bring people to Christ and to church?"  Many of the dying Presbyterian and other mainline congregations have impressive records of public service done in Christ's name.  From all of that service, however, few individuals outside of the church if any discovered faith in Christ.

So, there's the irony for you.  A recent Gallup Poll (here) indicates that most Americans agree that religion is losing its influence in society and, interestingly, many of them think we would be better off if it didn't lose its influence.  But those who have a heart for evangelism cut themselves off from those they would evangelize.  Those who can best share faith effectively in our secular age aren't interested in doing so.  Indeed, they often reject the idea of faith-sharing (witnessing, evangelizing) as being "like them," that is the like "those narrow-minded" evangelicals.  We love our walls.

Two Presbyterian Roads

In a recent posting entitled, "An essential Presbyterian conflict: Reformed versus Celtic faith," the Rev. N. Graham Standish argues that one facet of the conflict among Presbyterians today is our dual heritage of a dualistic Reformed-Augustinian theological tradition and a more holistic Celtic spiritual tradition. He writes, "Certainly there are other ways of analyzing the conflicts we have in the PC(USA), but looking at these roots is one way. And if this analysis is true, then we may be in conflict because our Reformed side regards human nature as essentially tainted, while our Celtic side regards human nature as essentially good." He goes on to flesh out the difference between these two traditions: "The more Reformed we are, the more we tend to gravitate towards an Augustinian, fall theology, interpreting Bible through the story of Genesis 3. We embrace the idea that original sin has tainted all of humankind, leaving us depraved and requiring God’s grace to forgive and redeem us...The more Celtic we are, the more we interpret the Bible through Genesis 1, gravitating towards a “goodness” theology grounded in God’s declaration that all in creation are “good. This theology recognizes the power of sin, and the need for grace. But it is tempered by a belief that our natural inclinations are good, and become sinful when gratifying these inclinations turns them into false gods to be appeased. Grace restores us to our natural, essential goodness."

The website, Celtic Christianity Today, contains a page on "Celtic Theological Attitudes," which provides a good orientation to the Celtic tradition.  For a longer description of Celtic spirituality see (here).

The extent to which PC(USA) and other American Presbyterian denominations are heirs to Celtic spiritual traditions is not clear to me.  A brief article by J. Philip Newell with the title, "Celtic spirituality listens for the heartbeat of God: Presbyterianism is influenced by ancient Celtic and Mediterranean traditions," actually seems to indicate that we have not been influenced by that tradition but should be.  It seems more likely that the un-evangelical wing of PC(USA) might become more interested in Celtic spirituality because that spirituality more nearly expresses the temper of our times, which as is becoming less and less dualistic, than because it is a part of our Scottish Presbyterian heritage.  In any event, Standish does touch on a central difference and source of conflict between Presbyterians today.  On the one hand, those who are leaving the denomination in increasing numbers tend to begin with a generally clear dualistic theology and work toward a consistent spirituality.  On the other hand, at least some of those who are staying tend to begin with a less dualistic spirituality and work toward a more inclusive theology.

A Sad, Sad Headline

Darlene Sitler (1959-2012)

This morning, the Huffington Post opens the day with a sad headline, "THE PRICE OF 'FREEDOM'," along with the photos of 100 individuals who have died from gun violence in America since the Sandy Hook murders. The article to which that headline links is entitled, "U.S. Gun Deaths Since Sandy Hook Top 1,280."  The article itself chronicles just a handful of those shooting deaths.

The list of  dead does not include Darlene Sitler, choir director of First United Presbyterian Church, Coudersport, PA, who was murdered while playing the organ during worship on Sunday, December 2, 2012, twelve days before Sandy Hook. See reports of her death, at the hand of her ex-husband, (here),  (here), and (here).  Darlene was a local music teacher and by all accounts loved and respected.  She was 53 at the time of her death.

The gun control laws now being discussed probably would not have her life as her killer used a handgun and the shooting was without any prior warning that he would do such a thing.  But, that does not mean that we as a society should not continue to try to reduce and reduce again the havoc we are wrecking on each other with guns.  As is being noted in the current debate over gun control, it is true that guns do not kill.  It is also true that violent, angry, demented, or just plain heartless people use guns to kill—by the tens of thousands every year in America.

It already seems clear that in the current political environment only a limited amount can be done to curb gun violence legislatively.  That is sad.  One fears that it is going to take another Sandy Hook and one after that and perhaps one after that to move legislation along. How much heartache we are going to endure before even a minimum of common sense moves us to begin the task of bringing gun violence under control?  The Second Amendment was intended to preserve our right to form militias not provide the opportunity to gun each other down in the streets.  Its modern expansion to include exactly that by its more radical "defenders" defies all spiritual as well as humane common sense.  Sadly so.

Coping With Loss

The people in the desert

Sometimes, it feels like all we ever talk about in the mainline ecumenical churches is decline, esp. in the Presbyterian Church (USA).  The literature on the subject is massive and continues to grow even as our churches continue to shrink.  No one can explain precisely why the decline continues—or why it has been so massive in Europe and so much more restrained and relatively slow here in the U.S.  This is not to say that there is not life in our churches.  There is.  One feels it in the singing and in creative worship services and in the many ways churches serve their communities.  And there are churches filled not only with life but also with younger families, young people, and children running around the way they used to run around in all of our churches.  Some churches are like that, but they are far fewer now than they were sixty years ago—and there are increasingly fewer of them with each passing decade.

A recent Presbyterian leadership conference, reported (here), took for its title, "Leading With Vision Through Loss," which combines the reality of our current situation (loss) with a proposed "way out" (vision).  The question is a vision of what?  The point was made in the course of the conference that many churches and their leaders have a vision of return, that is they want to go back across the Red Sea to the 1950s.  They don't really see any other way out and generally resist "transformational change," whatever that might mean.  The thing that stands out here is that decline is an experience in loss, which is attended with grief and a desire to not lose a dying loved "one," in this case the church the way it was back when.  One of the speakers at the conference summarized the point by saying, "We want to grow, but we don't want to change."  The point was also made that this resistance to change is not so much a rejection of new things as it is a resistance to giving up old things, that is change would be OK if we didn't have to give up what we have now.  Perhaps, then, we would be better served by focusing on what we need to lose instead of why we don't want to change.

In all of this, one senses an opportunity for every church—an opportunity to cut loose and discover a new way of being the church in the time and place given us.  Even those churches that are going great guns now are sooner or later going to lose the pastor or the lay leaders who are keeping it going.  The rising tide of secularity is a threat to every church (least so in the South, most so here in the Northeast) that one day has to be faced.  My personal sense is that the Spirit's message embedded in all of this is that fellowships of committed Christians only need to discover the courage to cut loose, walk away from the 1950s, and find renewed life in less doing and more praying, fewer activities and more fellowship, less do and more talk (that is dialogue with each other).  The vast majority of churches aren't going to do this, but there are movements afoot (e.g. Fresh Expressions in Britain, the Emerging Church here) that suggest the wave of the future.   God has already shoved us across the Red Sea, but the great majority of us are now camped on that far bank wanting to go back rather than forward—forward is desert, back is the wealth of Egypt.  Forward is hard, back is impossible.  Beyond the desert, however, is promise.

What will the next 50 years hold?  Whatever the future is, the church in 2062 surely will not look at all like the church of 1962.  We're going to have to cope with a lot of loss, but across the desert is promise.  Some will make it.  Amen.

Moving On

The 220th meeting of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (USA), met in Pittsburgh from June 30th through July 7th, 2010.  Reflecting on the results of the GA (here), Presbyterian reporter Leslie Scanlon summarizes it deliberations as being notable mostly for what they did not decide.  It was, in a sense, a "do-nothing" G.A.  It did not decide to redefine marriage.  It did not make major structural changes.  It did not take bold stands on social justice issues.  It feels as though it voted repeatedly for the status-quo.

Three thoughts:  first, G.A. meets too often.  It is a blessing that it no longer meets yearly (a change that took place in 2004), but once every two years is still too often.  Every time G.A. meets, all of the scabs of our denominational wounds get ripped off, every controversy is put back on the front burner, and more tremors of unease ripple their way through the churches.  The future of the denomination does not lie in the G.A. anyway, so why keep doing this to ourselves?  Second, it is now only a matter of time until yet another significant number of more conservative churches leave.  The next trigger will be when PC(USA) decides, as it surely will, to redefine marriage as being between two individuals rather than between a man and a woman.  That decision will inevitably cost us many (hundreds of?) congregations.  There is no sense worrying about it.  Again, the future of our churches (the ones that stay) will not be materially affected by those that leave.  Third, what matters is the renewal of local church life.  The higher echelons of the denomination don't seem to have much to contribute to that renewal, and (as has been said here before) we need to focus our energies and attention on the task of renewal and put aside worry over denominational structures, which have become a political football field for demonstrating our lack of love for each other across ideologies.  We need to move on.

A Prayer for the PC(USA)

However, I come away with an ache in my belly — knowing that we have not yet captured the spirit of unity in diversity that marks healthy families. We don’t yet know how to disagree graciously. We need to cultivate more of the wonderfully prayerful, open part of our life together and diminish the difficult, contentious part. Is that too much to hope?

Jack Haberer, "A Wonderfully Difficult GA"
Editorial on the 2012 PC(USA) General Assembly
The Presbyterian Outlook

The Long Past Tipping Point

A Presbyterian commentator, writing about the 220th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA), which met earlier this month, referred to it (here) as a "tipping point."  His point is that the growing departure of the conservative wing of the denomination will leave the denomination impoverished and lacking in balance.  Perhaps, he is correct—to a degree.  In actual fact, however, the old United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. and the Presbyterian Church U.S. passed the real mainline Presbyterian tipping point back in the 1960s, largely ignorant at the time that they had done so.  The 1960s were a time of significant cultural change, and the churches did not change.  They increasingly lost their privileged place in American culture, but they behaved as if they were still privileged.

Today, we are more and more a remnant people, and the ongoing battle over homosexuality is but a fight over the remnants.  Our evangelical brothers and sisters can go off to their own enclaves, but all they accomplish by doing so is to speed the decline of the remnant.  They become just another piece of the remnant, leaving it still more shredded and weaker.  Their departure changes nothing worth changing one way or the other.  It is way too late then to be talking about "tipping points" and will remain so until such time as the mainline reaches a point of resurgence that tips it upward, a time that seems still far off and may never come.

For us, the concept of a "tipping point" is a set of historical events and developments that we see through the rearview mirror rather than a contemporary experience.  Until we accept that fact and learn to adapt to changing times, it will remain so.  Our prayer should be for and the goal we work for must be another tipping point, one that carries us upward in the Spirit.  Amen.

Evangelical Spirituality & the Saving of Liberal Christianity

In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, columnist Ross Douthat wrestles with the question, "Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?"  Focusing on the Episcopal Church, Douthat describes two parallel trends that seem to be connected.  On the one hand, the denomination has become increasingly liberal.  On the other hand, it is in steep institutional decline.  He observes that among Catholics as well as Protestant, liberal Christianity is failing to maintain the health and vigor of liberal religious institutions.  Douthat also cautions religious conservatives that they should not take any pleasure in the accelerating decline of progressive Christianity.  For one thing, conservative churches are seeing their own decline, and for another the liberal social gospel has made an important contribution to the life of the nation. He concludes, "No one should wish for its extinction, or for a world where Christianity becomes the exclusive property of the political right."  Douthat argues that either the Episcopal Church and like minded denominations such as the Presbyterian Church (USA) recapture some of the vitality of Protestant liberalism of an earlier era or they will continue to change and change and die.

In a sense, there is nothing new here, but in another sense Douthat's ruminations on the state and fate of the mainline churches demonstrates how important their decline is to American society generally.  Indeed, something important is being lost with the increasing loss of the social gospel churches.  Indeed, it is tragic to think that American Protestantism will fall entirely into the hands of the right wing.

Douthat's piece contains a hint of a hint at "the way out," which seems to be a return to the liberalism of an earlier time.  He cites a much longer article by Gary Dorrien entitled, "American Liberal Theology: Crisis, Irony, Decline, Renewal, Ambiguity," which makes the case that a vital liberal theology was once based on a more warmly spiritual and personal liberal Christian faith.  In his article, Dorrien writes,

To put it bluntly, liberal theology has broken beyond its academic base only when it speaks with spiritual conviction about God's holy and gracious presence, the way of Christ, and the transformative mission of Christianity. That is not how a great deal of liberal theology has spoken over the past generation, to the detriment of liberal theology as a whole. In the past a spiritually vital evangelical liberalism sustained religious communities that supported the entire liberal movement. What would the social gospel movement have been without its gospel-centered preaching and theology? What would the Civil Rights movement have been without its gospel-centered belief in the sacredness of personality and the divine good?

I added the italics to "evangelical liberalism" to call attention to a growing personal conviction, namely mainline churches in decline can maintain and regain vitality only as they rediscover a vital spirituality that is lacking in most of them.  Liberal Christianity reflects the person of Christ, but somewhere along the line in all of the change we have flung ourselves into as liberal Christians we have lost a spiritual vitality.  We have lost our strand of the evangelical heritage, one that goes back to abolitionism and the emergence of settlement houses and urban ministry.  I should add that this idea of recapturing a liberal evangelicalism is not in any means original with me; it is something I've been learning from others over the last couple of years.

Evangelical liberalism - a thought worth thinking about.

(Interestingly enough, I found the illustration for this posting, above, at a blog named Living Wittily where it illustrates a brief piece entitled, "Being an Ecumenical Evangelical.")

Lessons from NATO

In May, the Atlantic Council published a report entitled, "Change Management and Cultural Transformation in NATO: Lessons from the Public and Private Sectors," written by Nancy DeViney and Edgar Buckley. It discusses and evaluates reforms being made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in response to NATO's changing mission in a changing world. This report is also a good reminder that organizations and institutions other than mainline American churches faces substantial challenges in our ever-fluid 21st century world. In many cases, the challenges are similar. DeViney and Buckley could have been writing about mainline denominations when they state of NATO that,

Culturally, NATO’s default behavior patterns no longer match its vocation and mission. The fundamental cultural problem is that it has not adapted its political approach and military means to match its modern role as an international security  organization with responsibilities going beyond simple defense.

It remains a bureaucratic organization which prioritizes process over substance, hierarchy over results, and accounting over value-for-money. It is far too inflexible and resistant to change–a constant source of frustration to successive NATO Secretaries General, who have had responsibility for organizational efficiency but little power to manage in the business sense. The entities’ business is also a key consideration: what is the mission, what are the key assets, where does the value reside?  (p. 2)

That's us!  Culturally, the Presbyterian Church (USA), its agencies and councils, and most of its local churches behave according to a set of "default behavior patterns" that no longer reflect the realities of their callings.  They have not adapted to their modern role as a counter-cultural movement rather than cultural institution.  PC(USA) remains massively bureaucratic in its approaches and thinking and continues to give inordinate amounts of attention to process, hierarchy, and budget.  Although there is clearly a desire and struggle to change in many corners of the denomination, it remains markedly inflexible and resistant to change.

In terms of addressing the need for NATO reform, the report advises that, "NATO can learn from best practice in the public and private sectors, where the central tenet of organizational efficiency is that structure, mission, and culture should be appropriately aligned." (p. 3)  So easy to write, so difficult to achieve—at least, when it comes to church renewal.  It is true, however, that mainline denominations and their churches can learn from the best practices of other agencies and institutions.  It is also true that their denominational structures, mission, and culture need to be in alignment.  Speaking more precisely, they need to be aligned with the person of Christ described in the gospels and with the spiritual realities of the 21st century.  So easy to write!  So difficult to achieve!

One thought: it is likely that church renewal starts best with spiritual rather than institutional renewal.  It is very difficult to re-form the church by reforming its structures.  It is more likely that we will discover new life for the churches by focusing on their spiritual re-formation.