CONTACT US | TALK BACK | SUBMIT TIP | SUBMIT PHOTOS/VIDEOS | CORRECTION
"But if conservative Christianity has often been compromised, liberal Christianity has simply collapsed. Practically every denomination — Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian — that has tried to adapt itself to contemporary liberal values has seen an Episcopal-style plunge in church attendance. Within the Catholic Church, too, the most progressive-minded religious orders have often failed to generate the vocations necessary to sustain themselves," wrote Ross Douthat in the New York Times.
As a Conservative Evangelical pastor, I've been surprised, perplexed, grieved, challenged, educated and often troubled by my exposure to "Liberal Christianity". At the same time I've grown more informed and have become more understanding of progressive Christianity through my friendships, professional acquaintances and my online blogging work in the last six years.
My involvement in the SpokaneFAVS.com as a blogger has provided a current backdrop to an ongoing contemplation of the voice and values of a part of the church I never grew up around or within and it's been an eye opening experience. I am grateful for the opportunity to learn and listen and I have been trying to understand the positions and perspectives held by the aforementioned groups but I have also been concerned by the trajectory of the movement.
This article in the New York Times presents some compelling observations and critiques of liberal churches and sounds some serious alarms about their decline and potential demise. I would be curious how a liberal/progressive Christian would respond to these observations?
Marj | Jul 16, 2012 | 11:40am
I read this article and wondered at my visceral reaction, which was “Why are we asking ‘Can liberal Christianity be saved?’ when the Christian faith seems to be waning, period?” As one who falls under “liberal/progressive,” my own experiences were that at some point my Christian faith aided and abetted my ability to be a prayer warrior but not exactly engaged in creating change in the world, praying “God, please use me” while adeptly being a great pew-sitter instead of being provoked to ask hard and harder questions about what the Good News might really mean in our culture.
That led me to ask questions in one church setting where questions were not exactly encouraged, so I quit going to church. Odd that if we are to pursue our faith, integrating scripture and the teachings of Jesus into “real life” experiences that it would be a pastor and lay leaders who shrugged their shoulders and offer, “We just have faith that God will use us.” My craving to answer my own call to ministry provoked me to find other places to ask questions—and it was again a Christian community of faith that while it held it’s traditions in a dual setting of American AND Southern Baptist (in suburban Maryland), the pastor was not only encouraging us to ask questions as individuals and as a congregation, but he himself often asked questions of himself and those who would hear.
After thinking about Douthat’s article, I read a HuffPost Religion response by Diana Butler Bass who asked pointedly “Can Christianity Be Saved? A Response to Ross Douthat.” Well worth the read, I think she presents more information to add to the conversation about where we all—traditional, conservative, progressive, liberal and so on—might really be missing the mark.
I’ve moved to what has historically been a theologically and politically conservative community, and yet the more I engage in conversations and relational opportunities, the more I realize folks are really asking “What does the gospel message mean for me? for us? And how do we study, pray and act in such a way that we’re more than simply a place to hang our hats on Sundays?” For several years as a human services professional and engaged in lay and professional ministry, I’ve grown increasingly aware that numbers speak ... but only to a certain type of reader. Personally, I’ve also moved away from numbers, craving instead a quality of journey that gets sabotaged or compromised when I worry about quantity of anything, even in prayer times.
So yes, I am concerned that during Sunday mornings our worship attendance is less than what it once was—and yet, I’m thrilled that at specially created worship occasions (Blue Christmas, Taize, prayer services, for example), there’s a deepening interest and attendance and—even more exciting—request to participate in celebrating. At this point in my personal and professional faith journeys, I’m going with the quality and let the Holy One worry about the quantity.
If you have opportunity, read Butler Bass’ article at (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/diana-butler-bass/can-christianity-be-saved_1_b_1674807.html), and share with me your thoughts!
Peace!
Alan Eschenbacher | Jul 16, 2012 | 12:18pm
Not sure of how to answer other than by telling a short version of my story. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) church that I pastor in Browne’s addition has nearly doubled it’s Sunday attendance in the last ten years and increased membership by 40%. (Not bad when you consider I have done 100 member funerals during that time). All Saints Lutheran is doing more outreach, especially on a per member basis, than at any time in its 125 year history. Community gardens, low-income housing, mental health chaplaincy, community dinners every week, food bank, coffee shop and bookstore, all fueled by a partnership mentality with many other entities and citizens in our neighborhoods. We will never be a “big” church and that is the way most of our members like it. Now, the question remains; Can we survive as a “small” church? I don’t know ... don’t care either. It’s God’s ministry and mission, if He wants it to continue in the way we are doing it, then He will see that it survives. Our calling is to love God, love people and serve them to the best of our ability. We are congregational in structure, Lutheran by tradition and a loving welcoming, liberal community by concensus of our people. What happens next is a mystery.
Tracy Simmons | Jul 16, 2012 | 1:08pm
Alan - wow, the growth you’ve seen in your church is amazing!
Judy Merrill-Smith | Jul 16, 2012 | 1:22pm
I think Douthat’s thinking is a little off. He seems to believe that the changes in liberal Christianity must doom it. But change is an inevitable part of life, including the life of institutions. Is it really a disaster that liberal Christianity is changing?
Perhaps the shift away from a centralized congregation, led by a minister, is a very good thing. Christianity was originally a small group phenomenon - a few committed people gathering together for education, community and support. The trappings of “organized Christianity,” especially the large buildings that require enormous amounts of time and money and maintenance, have become an albatross around the necks of many congregations. And the emphasis on having a minister at the center of a congregation - well, it sets up all sorts of terrible dynamics, as we well know.
I think the future of Christianity is a return to its roots. Small groups of people will gather together in various places and study spiritual ideas that excite them and tug at their hearts. The groups may have one leader, many leaders, or no leader at all. The ideas will change people’s understanding of who they are and what is possible in their lives. And eventually, this passion and growth and change will “save” the world.
Ernesto Tinajero | Jul 16, 2012 | 2:25pm
I wonder how the explosion of Christianity in the last hundred years factors into his equation? Most people are unaware that the last hundred and fifty years has seen the largest growth in Christianity in ... ever. While America and especially Europe have declined in numbers, the expansion in Africa, Latin America and Asia more than make up for it. The fact that these churches practice a Bible based faith that would be alien in both American conservative and liberal churches should give us pause. I remember I was at an event to rise money for missions. We were told about an amazing pastor in Africa who was starting churches and ministries left and right. We were asked what we could do for him. I said learn. Not a popular answer.
Eric, as an aside, you beat me to commenting on this article.
Amy Rice | Jul 16, 2012 | 3:00pm
Perhaps Douthat has come close to the mark when he says, “...perhaps they should pause, amid their frantic renovations, and consider not just what they would change about historic Christianity, but what they would defend and offer uncompromisingly to the world.”
It seems there must be a careful balance between doing socially progressive things and ensuring that people realize why a church is doing them. If it is merely progress for its own sake, a person may not feel compelled to join. However, if as Alan’s church seems to be doing, a church offers services, partners with community members, and makes it clear that their mission is to live the gospel, people may be drawn to it.
People pay attention to the lives of Christians they know, and they are looking for a life that has been transformed by Christ. It doesn’t matter if a person attends every church activity and serves on multiple committees in the church. If all this does not make a difference in his or her life, all this activity doesn’t matter to the person looking fir evidence of real change. Similarly, there are some churches whose hearts don’t seem to be in the services they offer.
So maybe churches should focus less on changing with the times and more on the things that are timeless: the message of Jesus and his call to love God and love others.
DaveK | Jul 17, 2012 | 4:11am
I brought this up on my own blog: http://subversivethomism.com/?p=668
To paraphrase my thoughts on the matter: I consider the term “liberal Christianity” a bit of a redundancy. Christianity is supposed to be liberating and open perpetually to the spirit of renewal. I suspect that it’s this jarring discomfort, the discomfort of existential freedom, which is why it is sometimes seen to be shrinking. Many people, especially in the West, and most especially in America, want religion to be comfortable, something unchanging, something like an anchor that they can hide behind when the rest of the universe looks too confusing. And it is true that, at some times, religion can and should serve that purpose. But it also has to be able to shake us up and bring us face-to-face with a wilder, more fluid, reality. When religion does that, many people get scared.
In some ways, this is what distinguishes Christianity from Islam. I do not mean to put Islam down, the word “Islam” I am told means submission. We are not God’s slaves. In Christianity, we are God’s family, blood brothers, and this freedom ought to bring a sort of liberalism with it.
That’s how I see it, anyway.
Eric Blauer | Jul 17, 2012 | 10:27am
Marj,
Thanks for the personal witness of your journey, I read the Bass piece, and found it to be a bit weak. “Hey we are not the only ones declining”...just wasn’t much of a response in my opinion. I wish she could of gave some serious reflection on the questions raised. Why did liberal churches start declining in the 60’s and why is it continuing? Sall renewals are great, but not very encouraging to those congregations that are bleeding out.
There also seems to be an absence of the discussion about progressive handlening of the Bible in the discussion too.
Ok…on to the rest of the comments.
Eric Blauer | Jul 17, 2012 | 10:30am
Alan,
Wow, your story is encouraging. I cant wrap my mind around burying 100 people. What’s the median age at your congregation?
Eric Blauer | Jul 17, 2012 | 10:36am
Judy,
Well, that’s a great idea until you outgrow your living room.
The whole cell thing is a beast all it’s own, I’ve been down that road in the 90’s….good for friend bbqs, cliques and pretty easy peer based relationships. Picking your family is far from the challenge of being thrown into a mix of all types, ages, encommics, politics, backgrounds, and leadership. All these factors require so much more than the small groupism that most often in my experience centers around me and my needs.
Eric Blauer | Jul 17, 2012 | 10:39am
Ernesto,
As a young 6 year old church that has been wracked by division, splits, and dissilutionment this year…I often wonder what’s the key to health amd fruitfulness experienced abroad. You raise some good stuff to think about and hopefully hear from someday.
Eric Blauer | Jul 17, 2012 | 10:42am
Amy,
“So maybe churches should focus less on changing with the times and more on the things that are timeless.”
Great quote.
Dave,
I’ll have to read your post because I’m not following you.
Bruce | Jul 17, 2012 | 1:10pm
I found the NYT article to be well-written and insightful. In my mind, conservative churches are just a few years behind liberal churches because that’s the nature of conservatism.
Eric Blauer | Jul 17, 2012 | 7:14pm
I found this article to be a very fine rebuttal to the article I posted. It’s well worth reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-winnie-varghese/the-glorious-episcopal-church_b_1674981.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=3151019,b=facebook
Tom Maxey | Jul 17, 2012 | 8:03pm
I love the comment from Alan E. I think he is spot on about why we are here and what our purpose is.
I think we are spending way to much time trying to figure out why our churches are failing. We offer this. We entice with that. My personal opinion is that Jesus Christ (this is still about Christ right?) does not care about the size of our congregations or the beauty of our buildings. Does Christ really care if we sing the song before we say a prayer or visa/versa? I understand there are many people who feel the need to be in church. They have a need to be fed. I do not think we should do away with the message of the Bible, that story is so beautiful and important. But it does not seem to me that we should be sitting in a church being fed. If we want to learn the Bible and its messge that is great. We should find ways to teach that message. But not so that people can be fed. The message is important so that we can figure out how to use it in our world today. So we can take action and fix our broken world.
I have concocted a theory. Maybe it is not new, but it remains one of my most prominent thoughts. Suppose that the heaven we are seeking is here. We are living in the heaven we think is elsewhere. We do not know when Christ will come. No matter how hard we try and second guess, we do not know what will happen for sure, or when. Suppose that everything is waiting for us. Suppose that what God wants to see before any sort of return is for us to fix our broken selves. When you look at Alan’s message and think what it would be like if we all got over our differences, religious or otherwise, and put our hands together to solve the issues in our own cities how much more effective, sattisfying and true to God that would be. If some worked on peace and some worked on the health and welfare of others, etc., etc. and we all worked together to fix our own brokenness. If we all had the same attitude as Alan and his group and worked toward the mission of Jesus Christ, the way Jesus would if Jesus were here. If weforgot about buildings and congregation size, would we not be further ahead? If I were God looking out my window, looking at the turmoil and war and hurt and hunger all over the world…and then I looked up to the north at a city (for grins let’s call it a Signal Community) was forming a web, concentrating the majority of its people’s energy on making sure everyone was cared for and loved, that they were seeking peace in every way they could and that they were succeeding, I believe this would be what would make me happy. Because that signal community becomes two and so on. People need the story of the Bible, as I said. But first they need to feel love and caring. Children need to be protected. Hungry need to be fed. If anyone wants to look at this and laugh and say it is impossible, then we are stuck with what we have. Congregations are not going to succeed. They may grow for a while but they will eventually fail. They have no purpose other then to feed…themselves. I am a firm beliver in the Signal Community and action. I believe that will be where we will find our strength as we begin to build that web amongst ourselves and fix our own brokenness. Can we try to fix that problem instead?
rob.hinkforth | Jul 29, 2012 | 12:58am
If I may….
In theological speak liberalism was traditionally a theological movement that merged in the 1800s. It faded into obscurity shortly after World War II. Much of it happening in Germany.
What Theological Liberalism classically was, was the removal of the supernatural from Christianity. Placing focus on this world with a good dosage of panentheism. Not to be confused with pantheism.
If clarification is needed…
Panentheism is the understanding that God interpenetrates creation and basically all things flow through God. Whereas in pantheism God and the universe are seen as synonymous.
To continue…
The philosophical school from which Theological Liberalism sprung was the Dialectic mode developed by G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831).
For Hegel God wasn’t some supernatural deity, rather God was seen as a district layer of reality found in what Immanuel Kant coined as the phenomenal plane (our world).
...taking a short detour….
Kant claimed that the traditional proofs for God’s Existence could be nullified into agnosticism.
Though many scholars did in fact embraced Kant’s agnostic thesis: even so, many of them simply answered Kant and said well ‘there’s really no need to appeal to the traditional proofs for God because as history can show God is a deity in process. Something that complements our natural world. Something is not supernatural to the natural world.’
In this view God was viewed as an evolving deity and history, the story of God’s unfolding; while we move, live, and have our being in this same history. How existential.
Evolution was a huge buzz word in the Enlightenment. What is often miss is that evolution was a theological term that influenced Darwin.
Theological Liberalism pick up on this and asserted that Christianity needed to evolve into a religion compatible with modernity. An influential theologian that comes to mind that endorsed this was Rudolph Bultmann.
Here’s the my point…
For Classical Liberalism; what matters most for the Christian are the teachings of Jesus. The historical Jesus, mind you. While the rest of the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt. Liberalism is what party gave birth to Biblical Criticism. These are its main contributions.
Eventually the Social Gospel movement and later offshots developed from under the umbrella of Theological Liberalism.
What is often eclipsed in the conservative, liberal divide that American Christianity is preoccupied with: in the 2000 year history of the Church there’s always been a liberal side and a conservative side. Nowadays the terms liberal and conservative have taken a totally different meaning.
In the history of the Church, Christians generally emphasized at the same time the heart of what we would call conservatism and liberalism. Theological Liberalism was a solidification that detached…what was otherwise a tradition of historical Christianity…into something that held Christianity hostage to modernity.
There have always been Christians who see the mission of the Church as social justice and reaching out to the least of these: while also being conservative.
In Roman times for instance it was this type of thinking that contributed to the development of hospitals. Especially in the Christian East…where theologically the Church was defined in part as being like a hospital. A place where people go to be healed from sin with the help of the sacraments.
This thinking has continued in Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Their understanding of what the Church is, is in part what the mission of a hospital is. Yet…at the same time…Eastern Orthodoxy is concerned with conserving sacred traditions that defined Christianity in the first thousand years of its existence. The same theological understanding can be found in Roman Catholicism and various Protestant Churches as well.
I hope the point is not lost…
Nowadays we see liberals and conservatives as two different things….in the tradition of the dialectical. Its part of what I personally see as the fallacy of subjecting everything to reductionist thinking. THANK YOU THEOLOGICAL LIBERALISM and those wonderful German scholars from the Enlightenment who foolishly believed the dialectic was so grand that it trumped all other schools of thought.
In Church history conservatism and liberalism were seen as attributes that were not only complementary of one another but also something not meant to be divided as separate camps. Under the diabetic model however all this has changed. Conservatism and Liberalism are viewed as antithetical.
Bruce | Jul 29, 2012 | 1:06pm
Fascinating review Rob. It’s really weird to me how conservative and liberal Biblical views have merged with political parties today. To be a liberal is almost considered to be anti-Christian in some camps, whereas not too long ago both political viewpoints were equally valid in the church. Very strange.
rob.hinkforth | Jul 29, 2012 | 8:55pm
@Bruce…true that. True that.
I think part of it comes from people buying into something needing to be that in order for something else to be this. American politics doesn’t leave room for centralizing views (as I would prefer): it always has to be polar opposites.
I think it a Christian should be able to vote either democratic or republican…when dealing with issues of conscious…without being stigmatized by their sub-Christian culture(s) as going against their faith. Most certainly.
Add Your Comment