It’s a question those of us who are part of a mainline/progressive denomination have been wondering for years. Or, it is a question we continually hear about. Our numbers continue to shrink, as does our monetary reserves.
Everyone has their reasons as to why mainline churches seem to be in sort of the death spiral. I want to use this blog post to share some of those responses and what they offer to our churches.
The most common response to shrinking numbers in our churches is one of mild annoyance. Fellow Disciples Pastor Derek Penwell, shares this view. In a recent blog post he is upset at how some believe that the liberal churches are losing members is because of their socially liberal stances on issues like gay marriage. Penwell sets up strawmen (one that is partially based on truth) that tells the mainline churches they are losing members because of their liberal views. He writes:
If mainline Protestant denominations would just shut up about all that liberal stuff — the soft stuff that gives liberals a reputation for bleeding hearts (like caring about the poor and the oppressed), and start focusing on the real moral problems confronting American life — like gay marriage, or the loss of traditional family values, or “the war on Christmas” — then they wouldn’t have to worry about bleeding members at such distressing rates.
He concludes by dismissing the “we are too liberal” argument as one focused on survival and not faithfulness to Christ:
But distilled to its essence, the contention that liberal denominations are losing members because of their liberalness or because they don’t make one’s stance on gay marriage a test of fellowship can’t but appear to be an appeal to utility dressed up in ecclesiastic garb. That is to say, if you begin from the premise that the church’s primary function is to survive, then anything that threatens that survival is bad, while anything that promises to aid in keeping the doors open is good. If the primary question centers on figuring out what works, then whether liberal theology is a faithful reading of the vocation of following Jesus or that insisting on doing away with high-handed legalism better reflects the message of the gospel is largely beside the point. The primary consideration is whether a belief or practice succeeds in helping keep the doors open — or, if you’re the more ambitious type, allowing you to add to your church the qualifier “mega.”
Now, I agree with Penwell that I don’t think mainline churches are declining because we are too liberal. I also don’t think the answer is to not be open to LGBT folk or the ordination of women. But Penwell never really answers the question about decline. This is really happening. Why is that? And if the “we’re too liberal” is bunk, what is the explaination? Why do mainline churches matter? Can we be concerned about the health of an institution like the church without it being dismissed as only being concerned about survival? Instead he just trades in slamming evangelicals and talking about following Jesus means dying (another good idea on the surface, but what does it mean in this context). Penwell’s response might appease liberal culture warriors, but it doesn’t help those in declining churches and seminaries figure out what’s next.
Penwell reflects a trend among some in mainline churches to ignore the serious injury that is causing blood to spout forth all the while proclaiming “it’s just a flesh wound!” We try to minimize the problems taking place either by saying we aren’t interested in survival or by looking for any chink in evangelicalism’s armor. When attendance starts to slip in evangelical churches such as the Southern Baptist Convention, some mainline leaders latch on to this as proof that we aren’t the only ones declining. That’s all true; but mainline churches are still declining more rapidly than those other churches. Why? Answering that means having to take a look inside and it might mean that we don’t do somethings so well.
Penwell’s view also reflects something else that I feel is going on within the mainline church: apathy for the tradition. Over the years, I’ve heard how God doesn’t need (insert name of religious denomination/institution). Or that we shouldn’t be so concerned about the survival of (insert name of religious denomination/institution). I’ve noticed at times a disdain for any formal structure and no appreciation of where they have been.
Putting too much faith in institutions can bring about death, just ask the Catholic church in the light of clergy sex abuse scandals. But as Allan Bevere notes, even the early church was formally organized. What I get from Penwell and others at times is that this tradition doesn’t matter. Of course tradition isn’t God. But tradition matters. It shapes us. Tradition reaches back into the past to connect us to the present and the future.
Dwight Welch is concerned about the decline of the mainline. In his recent blog post
, he shares how progressive congregations shaped him in the faith to become the man (and pastor) he is today.
He also shows that decline has consequences. Smaller numbers means smaller budgets and that can rebverberate in ways people don’t realize. Welch is concerned that the institutions that formed him are slowly disappearing:
We may be heartened by the rise of religious progressives among the young, but without institutional ways of relating, it’s hard to see how they will be organized. The loss of numbers means seminaries close, campus ministries shut down, the chance for a progressive church to be near by continues to diminish.
For example, In Indiana there were a dozen progressive and mainline campus ministries 20 years ago. Now there are 2, Butler and ISU. Notice that the largest universities in the state, including IU have no such presence. In Kansas we had a dozen ministries and in the same period we’ve been reduced to 2. Compare that to what evangelical para church groups and secular student organizations are doing.
I know from my own story that the reason I found a way to stay in the church was because there were religious progressive campus ministries where I found a way connect my values and faith. But given the expense of the old model, they required denominational funds that simply are not there, given the membership declines.
Many of the theologians I read, that opened up faith to me, taught at progressive seminaries, which are endangered. When I was first diving into progressive Christianity I read Christianity and Crisis, the Other Side, and other journals that don’t exist now. Mainline publishing houses face an uncertain future, a source of progressive ideas for the wider society.
While Dwight and I tend to have somewhat different political and theological views, I resonate with his view of the mainline. As much as I appreciate how evangelicalism shaped me, it was the mainline church that was able to intergrate my faith and my sexuality. It was the tradition that challenged my assumptions. But many of the institutions from publishing houses to denominations and seminaries are threatened due to the decline of the mainline.
I get that nothing lasts forever. I get that institutions can become gods to us. I get that we should trust God and be faithful even as our churches dwindle. But I am reminded of something Presbyterian pastor John Vest once noted: what is at stake for mainline/progressive Christianity? What makes mainline Christianity worth preserving for future generations? Can or should our seminaries and congregations help form tomorrow’s leaders? Do we believe this is a tradition that should be cared for? Or do we just dissolve and leave the defining of the faith solely to evangelicals?
I think one can work to preserve a tradition without it becoming their master. But we can’t do that until we understand why this tradition of the mainline matters. This tradition matters to me. It should matter to others as well- because Christianity will the poorer should this tradition wither.