That’s Tom Ehrich’s question:
“I think it’s time for leaders to lead, and for clergy to be aggressive about doing everything they can to grow their churches,” I told her. “Lay leaders shouldn't be allowed to stifle growth. It’s God’s church, not theirs.”
I wasn’t done.
“Other than budget expenses for something like a new Web site,” I said, strategies for moving forward aren’t about money or hiring. They are about mission, ministry, education, pastoral care, membership development and other factors that “shouldn’t require formal approval, unless your governing board has gotten into the habit of giving permission on everything that happens. If that is the case, correcting that dysfunctional sort of leadership is your starting point.”
Still, after 50 years of fighting about change, many mainline congregations seem braced for one last battle: whose hand gets to turn out the lights.
Time is running out. We need to break this deadlock. I think it’s time for change-minded leaders to lead, and for denominational officials to support them in the ensuing firestorm. Instead of fighting over who owns the building, we should be discerning who owns the mission. A congregation can’t be allowed to die just because entrenched leaders won’t allow life.
via Change or Die: When Lay Leaders Stifle Church Growth and Future.
Honestly, I think it’s clerical leaders as often as lay leaders who stifle growth (and life) in the mainline…
Related posts:
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
Tony,
While I agree with the sentiment, why do you assume this is a problem unique to mainline churches? This is a problem any church will face and have to address no matter if it is mainline or not because churches are made up of humans who tend to muck things up if given enough time and space to work.
As a Methodist pastor (mainline) I confess we have some problems but I disagree that they are at root a desire to lead ourselves rather than allow God to lead. Every church has it’s problems but by God’s grace we can move through and beyond them.
To put in lightly, Tony, the mainline church is already dead… they just don’t know it yet. The problem is that there is more concern for HOW they do things then WHY they do things. Holding onto the ways of yesterday and an unwillingness to change in an effort to engage culture is crippling their strength.
Agree… Disagree… I’m fine with it. But in all reality, the sad part is that there are a lot of great people with a ton of talent, skills and passion who are wasting their days in committee meetings fighting over what color to paint the bathroom. I’m sure that there are some good, productive mainlines out there. But they are the exception and not the rule.
Have a great day! GP
GP-
I would pose the same question to you as I did to Tony. What are you basing this on?
As I said, there is no doubt that there are bad practices within mainline churches. But that is not something unique to mainlines. It’s true of all churches the world over. You and Tony seem to think there is something inherently evil or wrong just be virtue of being “mainline.” Why?
And by the way, I am personally experiencing great renewal and revival in my own church and many of the Methodist churches I know. Furthermore, I think this critique lacks any sort of global sensitivity but is highly Ameri-centric. The Methodist Church, to give just one example, is growing in leaps and bounds in Africa, South America, South East Asia and the Philippines. Such obvious stats should not be ignored or dismissed when someone flippantly declares mainline churches are “dead.”
Hey Tony can you come be the prophet at th next Presbytery meeting and spread this word? I feel like I am speaking to a brick wall!
Maybe an outside “expert” would be heard better
As a person who has been part of the emergent conversation for a number of years and happily identify with it, I find it highly ironic that leading voices within the EC would make universal claims about the badness of something – in this case, mainline churches. Perhaps the mainline church in one particular context or community is just what the doctor ordered? It may not work in another context, but this does not mean all mainline churches are evil or broken. Is this not the same view we emergents take with any number of other issues?
Furthermore, it is ironic because in any finger pointing where one party (the EC) is pointing out the miscues of another party (mainline churches) lies an inherent contradiction: The very problem you point out, insistence on doing it *this* way and no other, is apparently solved by doing it *your* way and no other.
I don’t get that.
I think this quote in the original article nails it:
As one Presbyterian pastor put it, “These folks don’t really seem interested in doing much more than coming to church on Sunday for service.” Nor do they want their church offering more programs to anyone else, even though failure to serve new constituencies is inherently self-defeating.
I don’t think this stance is unique to the “mainline” church. Until people start to understand that the Church is NOT primarily about THEM and holding ON to power – it’s about serving the OTHER (and, so, God) and REFUSING power – I think the Spirit will bend energy towards expressions that DO understand it. The laity (hate that term) AND the leadership (this term is not much better) in ALL churches – mainline, evangelical, Catholic, emergent – need a major shift in their theology. I think that nondualistic/contemplative theology of Richard Rorh is hopeful as is the conversation in Philip Clayton’s Transforming Theology in this regards.
As someone with a mainline background but who currently spends time in more ‘social justice evangelical’ circles, I have to agree with Chad: this is not uniquely a ‘mainline’ problem. It may be occurring less often with more emerging congregations, largely because they are new and haven’t had as much time yet to ‘institutionalize’. But believe me, given enough time churches who begin with a more missional focus are just as capable of acting in retrenched ways, resisting structural change and arguing over minutiae as more traditional mainline churches are. It’s a problem of our human propensity to turn from trusting God (even when we may have trusted God for a while in a bold new ministry venture) and bolster that which brings comfort, power, and predictability.
Jeff – I agree. And again, none of that is unique to “mainline” churches. The title of this OP could just as easily have read, “Will the Church Die?” The obvious answer: No.
Dan – Agreed. What people easily forget, I think, is that all the so-called mainline churches of today all started out the same way EC has begun – out of revival and out of a concerted effort to return to the basics and be true to God and neighbor. There truly is nothing new under the sun, despite our attempts to prove otherwise.
Funny how people read this as naming the ‘badness’ of the mainlines, I don’t read it that way at all. The mainlines are working out of their modernity and Christendom culture, which positively valued resisting change and is ‘programmed’ in its DNA to attack postmodern influenced thinking. Of course there’s resistance, this isn’t a value judgment it’s simply stating fact, the object of the discussion is to work out how to respond. American? I read it as applying to the UK and Europe, where I am. From my (essentially non-denominational) perspective I’d say the problems are 50/50 between ‘clergy’ and ‘lay’ leaders. There isn’t a both/and or even a compromise solution in places where the cultural divide between ‘mo’ and ‘pomo’ is very stark, and where the moderns have all the money, authority and power.
For a ‘lay’ person, someone who is not paid by and in a ministry validated by a mainstream, the issue is sharp – just how much time do you waste sitting around waiting for a local congregation and/or its leader to ‘get it’. How much energy should you put into fighting unwinnable battles and struggling to understand those in power in their very different mindset, in this ‘Upstairs Downstairs’ situation where the laity in less power burn themselves out trying to mindread and understand those who live ‘in a different world’ and who don’t need to know what lay people think so long as they turn up and are manageable. Lay people are not in a position to effect change so basically have to leave or sit there suffering.
One compromise is to remain as notionally as possible with a mainline while planting/leading/ministering in a non-denom group, another is to leave but remain positively with the charism of the mainline even though the institution is left behind. Another is to just leave – . Whatever happens, there is grief and anger to process, a sense of unfinished business perhaps, and we can help each other recover and find healing in this painful and chaotic transitional time.
isn’t the dirty secret really that ALL churches are in decline in North America? mainline and evangelical?
i don’t remember where i heard that, but is that correct?
decline meaning “drop off of numbers attending”….
It seems that we look at the church inside-out rather then the last places of societal “ripple”. Most everything is changing rapidly and the Church is … of course, not immune. Interesting that we think of Church trends and/ or shifts as good, bad, necessary, overdue, etc. Personally I do not think of all the other changes that have taken place in my life of the last 10 years this way.
I guess the question I ask is our we moving toward being post institutional? Do the institutional structures provide as much value to individuals and groups as they can create on their own?
@nathan.
sure, they’re declining. that is, if the american church is only white american christians.
ethnic minority christianity is surely on the rise in america. but that doesn’t seem to matter to newsweek.
the only concern with the rise in ethnic minority christianity, however, is a theological fundamentalism associated with it. that’s where i’m scared.
I am starting to wonder if the death of the institutional church (mainline and otherwise) is not a GOOD thing – a death that we need to facilitate and celebrate rather than try to resuscitate.
I have been reading Harvey Cox’s “The Future of Faith” and was struck by his quoting of Charles Maier’s “Among Empires”. Maier concludes that “empires tend to spread their pyramidal-hierarchical pattern into all the institutions in their orbit. People not only live within empires; the empires live within them.” Cox goes on to say: “This tendency to replicate the structure of empire helps explain why so much of the Christian movement, which began as the persecuted victim of the Roman Empire and provided an alternative to it, then became a obsequious mimic of that empire and finally it’s compliant acolyte.”
I overlay THIS with another “dangerous” book I’ve been reading – The Existential Jesus by John Carroll – and something interesting emerges. Carroll proposes that Jesus’ view on the church may have been purposely subverted by the institutional church. He suggests that perhaps we have read the earliest Gospel (purposely positioned AFTER Matthew in the canon as a way to “hide” it) through a distorted institutional lens. While I was always led to believe that Mark was essentially a “simple and naive” book, scholar Harold Bloom (whom Carroll quotes) says, “whoever composed Mark is a genius still too original for us to absorb”.
If we read it with NEW eyes and restore its original story, we just might conclude that Jesus really was AGAINST the idea of “church”, that healing and true life takes place OUTSIDE its walls, that his telling Peter to “feed my sheep” was really not Jesus’ real dream but it was “settling” – the best he could expect from a Peter who did not “agape” love him…only “philo”.
As an agnostic, John Carroll offers an interesting “outsiders” perspective that we might need to listen to. Check out this article by Carroll on his book: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/arts/jesus-the-essence-of-being/story-e6frg8px-1111113048390
Jeff,
What, exactly, is the problem with “mainline” churches? You and Tony (to name a few) seem to think there is something inherently wrong with mainline churches or with institutions in general. Why is that?
Why would the death of an institutional church be a good thing? And replaced by what? Another sort of church that is more to your liking which will eventually become the new “empire”?
I am not saying institution church is “evil” – after all, I am a product of this form of church and would not be at this point on my journey with out it. What I AM saying is that a lot of time and energy is being spent on saving something that is perhaps becoming past its “best used-by date” (if, in fact it was ever intended in the first place, which is the main point of my prior post).
While there is a decline in traditional church attendance, who is seriously interviewing these folks to see where they are going and what they are doing to connect to God. George Barna’s book “Revolution” talks about the growth of house church communities that no one is apparently counting. My wife and I consider it “church” when we meet a small group of friends to work through the book of Isaiah on a Sunday morning at Starbucks. We consider it “church” when we serve dinner to women at a recovery shelter on a Saturday night. We consider it “church” when we meet with our emergent cohort at a local pub for theological conversation. We are part of the “decline in attendance”, but we are actually more active than ever! Why is the institutional church so determined and obsessed with “attracting” us back to a building? Why are they not encouraging more of us to actually stop GOING to church (the building) and to BE the church out in the world? Shouldn’t the goal be to grow followers of Christ to the point that they can be “weaned” off the clergy and building, with the last one out turning of the light with a smile on their face? Instead, it seems, the clergy is terrified of becoming unemployed and is scrambling to hang onto their job.
It seems that the church is moving back towards what Jesus may have intended all along – small intimate cells of “followers of the way” living the best they can (I love Tony’s translation of the Didache!) under the Reign of God while trying to share/display that Reign to others. Rejoice!
Jeff,
Why must it be an either/or? Why not both/and?
Did the Holy Spirit cease calling and gifting certain people to be pastors and teachers?
Jeff,
Allow me to expound a bit more…
I think it is great that you are finding other ways to grow in Christ outside of traditional means. What I don’t understand, however, is why you think your ways must replace the other or why those in the other ought to do it your way. I say: Why not do both?
None of this is new. I am a Methodist pastor and as such, belong to a tradition that more or less made popular what you are calling “church.” Under John Wesley you were not a Methodist unless you belonged to a small group that met during the week (often many times during the week) to pray, study, sing and testify. But Wesley also insisted that his small groups attend church each Lord’s Day so that they could partake of Eucharist as well as stay connected to sound doctrine/tradition. His intent was to reform the Church of England – never to wish its demise or to leave it altogether.
To be honest, as a Methodist pastor (and one who is a friend of emergent) I find it offensive that we are being painted as nothing more than people desperate to cling to our jobs. I find this frustrating because many people I talk to who think we Emergents are nothing but heretics argue that Emergents are nothing more than 30-40 year olds who are just pissed off with their evangelical upbringing and are rebelling now that they are out of the house and have a degree. They can’t stand authority, they tell me, and are nothing more than disgruntled Christians who claim to be inclusive and “liberal” (in the best sense of the word) until you think differently than they do or until you disagree with “doing church” their way. And if you belong to mainline churches you just don’t get it and if you are a pastor in those churches you are just clinging to a career.
I hear all that crap and I have consistently argued with them for over 5 years that this is not what Emergents believe or teach and that they have us all wrong. That is until recently. With Tony Jones’ (who I respect and agree with on pretty much 95% of things) latest bashings of denominations I have become increasingly uneasy with the direction the de-facto bishop of Emergent is leading this band of emergents. I touch on that on my blog here: http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2009/05/18/the-need-for-sinful-denominations/
I’ll pause for now and look forward to your response (or Tony’s).
grace and peace.
Chad
Again, I am NOT saying to suddenly close down all the church buildings – there ARE many that are vibrant and life-giving. What I am suggesting is to stop CLINGING to expressions that ARE loosing people. I see Jesus teaching us not to cling or grab onto things, but to empty ourselves (kenosis). Even LIFE is something that one should not cling so tightly to. Yet the very churches that supposedly TEACH this do not live it out themselves – they continue to cling. If something does not die, it cannot be reborn to new life, can it?
What I am tired of is the way churches and/or denominations see each other as the “competitor” that they are loosing “customers” to. Numbers and size seems to be all important. So WHAT if we are becoming post-denominational or post-mainline – could that not be a Spirit thing? If the people are not “quiting God” but are simply moving to other “altars in the world” where the Spirit is calling them, why is that threatening? It is threatening when you have building and salary budgets (local, regional, national) that are constant (or increasing) and shrinking “revenue”. This is when is becomes more of a corporate enterprise rather than an unstifled vessel of the Spirit. And EVERY denominational church I have been part of in the last 20 years was this “enterprise”.
Did not the hierarchical structure put in place under Constantine simply create passive lay people that became dependent on the clergy to instruct and “save” them? Are you not willing to admit that this structure, still employed in the institutional church, CAN encourage “lazy” Christians that show up on Sunday to “God’s House” to let the “paid professionals” lead them in worship so that they can get back to their “regular” week-day jobs? Might this not lead to a “holy/secular” worldview? Is not the Spirit calling and gifting “lay people” into pastoring and teaching one another as they did in the early church? How many MORE people would HEED this calling if they knew it was realistically possible to live into it in a small house church setting vs. thinking of it in the traditional building-based institutional church setting?
Just to be clear: I am a true “lay person” – I have never taken a single seminary class in my 52 years. I am not angry with the institutional church (though disillusioned and disappointed in many areas) and I am not angry with pastors (I am good friends with many). But the writing is on the wall – the church I grew up in is gradually becoming a relic. Change is taking place whether we like it or not. Something is dying and something is being born. And Jesus tells us “do not cling”.
Sorry…forgot to respond to your “both/and” question. Yes, I firmly believe that we WILL be both/and for some time – it is still needed. I am fine with that and I embrace that – Richard Rohr has moved me closer to that non-dual thinking/living than anyone else. But “both/and” requires one not hold tightly to either.
Jeff,
I hear you. And I commend you for your passion and zeal. If every church had just 12 people like yourself…..
Yet I fail to see how your passion must lead one to the conclusion (or hope) that the mainline or institutional church die. For starters, I do not know anyone who falls into the category of being “clingy” as you describe it nor do I feel threatened by anything you are describing – rather, I encourage it! Yet you seem to be describing a scenario that certainly happens from time to time but one that is not the fault of mainline churches but human sin. Yeah, I wish human sin would die, but for now we have to learn to overcome.
One of the main problems with your critique is that it is entirely consequential. All one need to do is provide other examples where the mainline church is not “clinging” to this or that and is actually quite vibrant and growing in order to prove your critique wrong. While your experience may lead you to believe you are right I could point to any number of examples in the US that say otherwise. Or, I could point you to the bulk of the church outside the USA and show you where the Methodist church (for example) is growing by 400% and the Spirit is alive and well! Perhaps what you are concerned about has more to do with American/Western (I don’t want to leave out parts of Europe) Christianity than it has do with mainline churches?
What if I told you that my experience with cell groups and house churches and small groups is that over time they become little more than the reflection of their leader more than Jesus and they become cliquish and get too “comfortable” and cease growing but just stay the size they are because outsiders don’t feel welcome in a group that is so small and has been together for 10 years? What if I then said house churches must die so that something new could take place? You’d rightly call me a bit dramatic and wonder why I can’t celebrate all the good they do rather than focus on my own bad experiences, right? I hope you would.
Or, what if I said that since 50% or more of marriages end in divorce that the “institution” of marriage has gone far past her “use by” date and should be abandoned. Let’s hope marriage dies away so that new life in some other form can emerge. Wouldn’t that sound a bit odd? It is the same thing I hear when I hear people hoping for the death of the mainline church.
Rather than hoping for the death (it is true death is something not to be feared and something that God CAN and WILL resurrect new life from but death is never something we are told to HOPE for) of anything why don’t we join each other in praying for the Spirit to move in and through the Church of Jesus Christ wherever and however it is being done? Why not join me in praying that mainline churches be filled (or refilled) with God’s Spirit so that people may continue (or start for the first time) to experience God and know Jesus in a fresh way? Why not join me in praying that where people feel disillusioned by the church as traditionally done that they will stumble upon a Jeff Straka who will show them another alternative to meeting Christ in a formational way? Why not join me in celebrating the myriad of ways the Spirit works through God’s Church and speaks to God’s people, both in mainline churches and without, while we also pray that where both mainline churches and alternative churches fall short they might be lifted up by Spirit-led pastors and lay people?
I believe we can affirm all that is being said here (by yourself and others) without going to the extreme of hoping for or praying for or predicting the “death” of anything. Don’t you agree?
peace,
Chad
Here’s the part of the traditional/institutional/mainline church that, in my opinion, NEEDS to die:
The part that does not allow for honest, open discussion about theology. The part of the church where a sermon teaching is always one way with no allowance of conversation or questioning. The part that sees one as a “heretic” if they wrestle the notion of a pre-Easter and a post-Easter Jesus (ala Marcus Borg), if they no longer see the miracles of Jesus necessarily as literal events but as parabolic/mythical story, that sees one as a heretic if they no longer see a God in the traditional ways (omnipotent, omniscient) but a God “in process” and “in relation” with his creation. The part of the church that still tries to say the Bible is 100% “God inspired” and not possibly the limited interpretation of the writer in their context. The part of the church that continues to refer to the gospels as “eyewitness accounts” (inferring a factual news report), when they have known for a long time they are anything BUT. The part of the church that still implies a literal birth narrative even though Luke’s and Matthew’s stories don’t mesh because the are metaphors. The part of church were I never heard about the Nag Hammadi writings (1945!), that the early Christians read from a diverse set of gospels and letters, that the formation of the Bible canon was not such a “Godly” process, that the Council of Nicea and all that surrounded it was DEFINITELY not a “Godly” process. The part of the church that doesn’t wish its laity to wrestle with the “dirty little secrets” of its past (and its present) and present only a “perfect face” (the part of the church that probably wishes the internet did not exist!). The part of the church that claims “the priesthood of all believers” and yet only allows certain “authorized” ones to offer the Eucharist to another. The part of church that still claims Jesus is the ONLY way and does recognize “the way” in other religions. The part of church that still does not see gays and lesbians as 100% sons and daughters of God able to serve in all areas. The part of the church that preaches a prosperity gospel instead of a gospel of giving EVERYTHING away. The part of church that feels the need to build a $5 million bridge between its parking lots so that its “customers” aren’t inconvenienced (http://letsbuildabridge.com/ ) while there are people dying of unsafe water every day. The part of the church that does not take the Beatitudes seriously. I could go on…
Is it wrong of me to hope and pray for the end/death of THESE parts of the church?
Dear Jeff,
On the majority of those particular issues I would give a hearty “Amen!” And so would most mainline denominations as a whole. It sounds like your beef is more with conservative fundamentalism rather than mainline denominations. One of the main reasons I became a United Methodist was because it is such a large tent – we have all sorts of freaks in this tent (self included!). You might find this post I wrote about “Mongrel Methodists” interesting: http://chadholtz.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/learning-from-mongrel-methodists/
In that I share some of my own journey that brought me where I am today.
A lot of the things you name certainly need to die and in many areas already have. But I don’t think certain doctrinal disagreements are worth invoking the death of an institution over (like the birth narratives you bring up or how the canon was constructed). Diverging views on matters inconsequential to one’s salvation can add spice and flavor to the journey. I guess what I am saying is it sounds very odd to hear an Emergent say that in order to thrive you have to believe *just like me*.
Again, rather than wish for the death of things we disagree with why not roll up our sleeves and stand with people we don’t see eye to eye with so that we all might be built up and “come to maturity in Jesus Christ”?
The epistle text in the lectionary for this Sunday was 1 Cor. 12 – where Paul speaks of the variety of gifts and the need for all parts of the Body. I couldn’t help but think of this discussion in light of this. Whether you intend to or not, what I hear in your words sounds a lot like the hand telling the foot we no longer need you – just die.
Again, what if we celebrated our differences rather than seek to eradicate them?
All of the experiences I mentioned above (with the exception of the bridge) happened in my personal mainline experience (ELCA and PCUSA). So, no, it’s not just disagreement with the fundamental church. I would have loved to continue in an environment with different understandings but you come to a point where you get tired of being called a heretic and not a Christian.
I think the point of this post (from the article it linked to) was that many current church leadership structures (session, council) really don’t WANT to change what they are doing in spite of membership loss. The Presbyterian church I left a year and a half ago is a prime example of this. The pastor who started the church 15 years ago had grown to embrace a missional stance rather than attractional (he also embraced much of the emergent movement). The membership and leadership had grown increasingly resistant to this language and direction to the point where the pastor no longer could move the church towards what he saw not only as survival, but transformation (which was more important to him than the numbers). He finally came to a point where he could no longer remain in that environment and left. So it is the laity’s resistance to necessary change that is killing that particular church as those who DID seek a missional direction are leaving.
I agree where you say “why not roll up our sleeves and stand with people we don’t see eye to eye with so that we all might be built up and “come to maturity in Jesus Christ” “Why, then, is the ELCA and the Episcopal church headed for a split over the gay/lesbian issue? To the outside observer, doesn’t it look absolutely ridiculous to be wasting time and resources over THIS rather than helping the poor, the orphaned, the widow? Aren’t these mainline churches, in these splits, telling the “hand to die”?
A shining light among mainline churches seems to be the UCC. They not only seem to be able to embrace diversity without dividing, they seem to understand the “both/and” of existing and emerging churches but are wisely seeing where the future may lie. See http://www.ucc.org/news/local-church-ministries-board-2.html
and
http://www.ucc.org/news/LCM-Board-Report-2009-10.pdf
Oops – hit reply before I pasted this last link:
http://www.ucc.org/news/opinion-moving-toward-a.html
Dear Jeff,
I hear your concern and angst over perceived (and some real) problems with mainline churches. I get all that. I really do.
But I have to stress again that the problems you describe, while certainly infecting many a mainline church, are just as present or possible in ANY church, mainline or not. The story you share of the pastor going more missional-based rather than attraction-based and the congregation opposing this move can happen anytime and anywhere – it happens in non-denominational churches and it happens in house churches. Change, even if it’s GOOD change, is often messy and not without casualties. What you might call the death of something (because members are leaving) others might call pruning. It’s all in how we look at it.
Particular denominations have a history and a tradition of how they read and interpret Scripture within their communities. There is nothing inherently wrong about a denomination sticking to her doctrinal standards and insisting that if people wish to be members of this particular community they give some sort of assent to this. Granted, it doesn’t mean one must leave a church if they disagree (for instance, I can disagree with the UMC’s position on gay/lesbian issues but if I wish to remain a Methodist I must uphold it). I don’t believe it is a good spiritual practice to simply jump ship every time the captain takes a course that I myself may not have selected so long as we are still proclaiming Jesus Christ is Lord.
Again, it seems odd to me that Emergents like yourself are saying that we can’t have a vibrant, life-giving Church unless we either a) all agree on a set of doctrines that the leader or group self-selects or b) become like the UCC where you can pretty much believe anything you like.
McLaren offers what I believe is a far more balanced view of things without going to the extreme of wishing for or calling for the “death” of anything. Rather, he celebrates the good and calls the church to respond and reform the not-so-good. Which is pretty much what I have been trying to say above.
http://www.faithandleadership.duke.edu/multimedia/brian-d-mclaren-denominations-do-invaluable-things
I am not (nor do I think anyone part of this discussion is) wishing for the “death” of the mainlines. There is no dispute that the mainline church is in decline. There is even debate over the whether the life of the evangelical church is as vibrant as we are led to believe (Michael Spencer, Christine Wicker). The point is that unless they get serious about addressing the causes of the decline, it will continue to the point of death. The point is that many congregations seem to want to bury their heads in the sand and stick to what has worked in the past. You can believe that it’s “not good spiritual practice to simply jump ship”, but apparently those leaving the mainline church would disagree (I left to save my faith). The point is I offered some insight as a lay person who has left the mainline church and you simply pigeon-holed me as a “believe my way” or a “believe anything” Emergent (which is NOT what most emergents I know think), and so you really weren’t listening to what I was trying to offer. (BTW, if I have to label myself as anything, I prefer to be called a hopeful skeptic.) I offered the UCC as an example of one such expression that seems truly interested in the future of faith.
Brian’s article (thanks for sharing!) seems to offer many good points of advice for denominational/mainline churches to seriously consider. He uses the words “needs to” and “have to” indicating that he, too, cannot foresee a viable future for these expressions unless changes are made. I share Brian’s (and your) hope, but I really wish I was seeing serious evidence of the embrace of difficult change.
Bruce Reyes-Chow, moderator of the PCUSA is part of a conference at Columbia Seminary I am attending this week, “Emergence Now”.
http://www.peopleware.net/index.cfm?siteID=572&event=2010LL&subeventDisp=0126JANSEM
I will be very interested in hearing his take on this conversation!
Jeff,
I am glad you are not wishing for the death of the mainline church. Perhaps I misunderstood your intent in comment 15 where you said this:
“I am starting to wonder if the death of the institutional church (mainline and otherwise) is not a GOOD thing – a death that we need to facilitate and celebrate rather than try to resuscitate.”
The circles I run in within the Methodist church and others (I’m at Duke Divinity where these things are discussed often in an ecumenical context) are full of people who are well aware of these concerns and are not afraid of change. And the churches I have served and been part of are not afraid of change. I recognize there are plenty out there that are and perhaps, like most things in life, the bad apples make for the best press and if we didn’t have something to disagree about there would be no sense in blogging
Allow me to offer this middle ground, and feel free to correct me if I am once more misreading what your saying:
Mainline churches must make some changes or they will continue to decline and become irrelevant. The problems they face now, however, are problems any “church” will one day face if around long enough because churches are made up of humans and the problems within mainline churches are not unique to mainline churches but something that happens anytime humans get their hands on stuff. Emergent churches would do well to learn from the mistakes mainline churches have made (and make!) while also embrace the many great things they have done (and do!). We can celebrate the gifts and graces each has to offer while exhorting each other to even greater heights.
Amen?
I DO wrestle with whether the organized church was ever what Jesus had in mind! Read John Carroll’s book and see if you don’t begin to wrestle with this question, especially when you look back over the history the church. And I wonder aloud the possibility of the Spirit at work looking for a death/rebirth of an expression that is closer to his original dream, and that our clinging is actually stifling this dream.
That said, I agree with you summation, especially the lesson for the Emergent church. When I see ANY expression becoming defensive about a position, it is telling me that “clinging” is going on. I do not want to see the “ooze” start to “solidify”, or it becomes just another doctrine-based institution.
“You know well enough how the Wind blows this way and that. You hear it rustling through the trees, but you have no idea where it comes from or where it’s headed next.” John 3:8
Amen!
“My soul clings to you; your right hand upholds me.” Psalm 63:8
“Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good.” Rom. 12:9
Not all “clinging” is bad
Check out this article by Philip Clayton:
http://www.theooze.com/articles/article.cfm?id=2367
Jeff,
Thanks for the link. I left a comment there but it isn’t showing up – at least not yet.
Chad, there you go again, stirring up mischief.
No, but seriously, it has been my experience that mainline churches (not all, but enough) are the ones willing to embrace an emerging-shift to facilitate God’s grace in this new world. Perhaps it is because they are in decline and are willing to try anything. Perhaps it is because their theology is more accepting than most evangelical churches and their methodology is finally being given a chance to catch up.
Personally, I am being drawn more to the Mainline expression (currently Episcopal) because of their deep roots and connectivity to a past. Growing up in independent non-denominational churches has left me feeling a bit like an orphan with no grandparents.
I think there will always be a both-and. I just love the fact that a lot of Mainline churches are willing to play with the notion of change. I predict that in the future Mainline churches will regain popularity (though they may look differently) and that popularity will create new problems and power-struggles (even in politics). And the cycle will repeat…
Jeromy-
That’s awesome. I can resonate very well with the desire to be part of something with ancient roots. Heck, I’d probably become Roman Catholic if they’d change their dogmas on marriage and sex (they would frown on you sending me that lipstick marked tissue!)
I think you are right about mainline churches willingness to change and their embracing of emergence. I see it all the time in the circles I run in. Which is why I just don’t get all this death talk.
LOL. Chad, I thought we discussed that what happens on Facebook STAYS on Facebook.
But, in all fairness, for something to change (i.e. Mainline embracing emergence) there is a certain death involved. But death-change serves the purpose of rebirth, not burial. I think this is where the confusion lies.
Jeromy – sorry. I guess I should keep silent about that time you, the rabbi, and the priest walked into a bar and….
As for death language I am generally cautious about using it. As Christians we are in the business of life, hope, peace and joy, not death. I think it is one thing to say that certain *practices* within mainline churches ought to “die” (which is true of anything that is around for more than, say, an hour – we ought to always be pruning and evaluating what is fruitful and what is not) but it is another thing to say the mainline church must die (or hope that she does).
As I have said before, I don’t hear anyone calling for the death of marriage since 50% of them end in divorce. Why don’t we instead celebrate the strengths of each other while at the same time call for reform where needed?
‘The church in the West isn’t dying, God is killing it.’ Stanley Hauerwas
Check out this blog post:
http://www.gladysganiel.com/social-justice/dave-tomlinson-book-review-re-enchanting-christianity-the-re-emergence-conference-belfast/
“Thanks!” to Peter Rollins for the link!
Tony
Your post – and similiar comments on the AAR podcast you did with Diana Butler Bass – leave me sad and disapointed. 1) you show your Evangelical bias, reading the ‘faults’ of the mainline through the lens of your own tradition, with naming the bias and location that could color your optic. 2) You negate growing, thriving ‘emerging’ mainline churches (my own Anglican church for one) who have made a wonderful mix of emergent and progressive theology. 3) you do not identify that it is the gifts of the mainline church – liturgy, spiritual traditions, theological traditions – which have been the full and fire for the Emergent Church.
I write this as a person who believes strongly in the death of the mainline church. Just as we see a post-evangelical movement we too need a post-mainline movement of contextual movements seeking to mine the depths of tradition in contextually appropriate ways. We cannot fully dismiss the ‘liberal’ church because all oour posing aside, their are still folks for whom the EC and the evangelical church are dangerous, sick and unhealthy places. It’s a both/and and not an either or.
It is my hope that a truly Post-Mainline, Progressive/Emergent movement will arise. I am hoping to see ‘church after google’ type structures emerge that are stepped in the poetry of the greater christian tradition, contextually oriented and progressivly emergent (promergent? Emergssive?) for those bodies that fall through the cracks.
Tony – it’s both/and not either/or.