Is liberal Christianity doomed?
A debate about the causes of decline in churchgoing overlooks some key structural issues, such as undersized churches.
Riverside Church
Chuck Taylor
Last Sunday, July 15, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat asked “Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?” focusing his inquiry on the Episcopal Church in the U.S. Later that same day historian and author, Diana Butler Bass responded to Douthat with a piece at the Huffington Post, saying Douthat had gotten it all wrong.
Douthat’s argument is that the Episcopalians epitomize the problem of liberal Christianity, which is that from a theological point of view there’s no there there (to employ Gertrude Stein’s memorable turn of phrase about Oakland).
While this may be a bit harsh, he’s onto something. In many liberal denominations it's all about ethics; that is, how people should behave, what causes they should embrace, which side in the culture wars they should support and so on. Ethics is certainly one part of a religion, but arguably not the most important or even the primary part. That would be beliefs and teaching about God, or faith and theology.
On the ground, in church or temple life, what this comes down to is something like this: Is church mainly about hearing rallying cries to do good or to join political causes, or does it involve an experience of mystery, or the sacred, or a reality greater than ourselves, along some core convictions about that larger reality? Douthat’s argument is that lacking the latter and being only the former, religious groups tend to wither away. I think he’s right.
Bass responds that Douthat’s argument is no more than a reprise of an old, and false, thesis which boils down to “conservative churches grow while liberal ones decline.” Along with Bass, I think that argument is simplistic and wrong. But that’s not the argument Douthat is making.
Bass points out that decline is not limited to liberals. She notes that the Southern Baptists, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and the Roman Catholics are also declining, so it's not just a liberal problem. She’s right on that score. But the reasons for their declining may because the more conservative groups are increasingly making the same mistake as the liberal ones by turning religion into a platform for, in their case, conservative values, ethics, and politics (how many sermons about abortion or gay rights do you want to hear from your parish priest?) instead of an encounter with the mystery, the sacred and, well, a God who is not — here’s a surprise — chiefly interested in America’s Culture Wars.
In his recent book, Bad Religion, Douthat goes after both liberal and conservative forms of Christianity in the U.S., which suggests he’s not simply, as Bass argues, rehashing the old “conservatives grow/ liberals decline” thesis. Douthat, a conservative thinker, argues that both are a mess.
Douthat makes a couple other points that are terribly important. One is that no one should rejoice in the decline of a liberal Christianity that in its better days and with a more robust theology contributed immensely to our national life (think colleges and universities created by the hundreds, hospitals and social welfare agencies by the thousands, not to mention a rich intellectual inheritance and tradition, personified by people like Reinhold Niebuhr and Paul Tillich). One day we may wake up to notice that we’ve lost something precious.
Another important point he makes is that liberal leaders have long been in decades of denial about their reality. This, I can testify, is true. In my own denomination, the liberal United Church of Christ, leaders for 40 years now have embraced the issue du jour, without looking honestly at the systemic issues.
But neither Douthat nor Bass comes to grips with the systemic issues facing liberal Christianity. While I agree with Douthat that liberal churches absent religious content aren’t very interesting or viable, and while I agree with Bass that there are some bright exceptions of congregational renewal and vitality here and there in the liberal Christian world, there are some tough systemic issues that neither address.
First off, a key issue facing historic (and mostly liberal) Protestantism is that for many years, say 1870 to 1960, this was the de-facto established church of North America, reigning on the town squares of New England and in the downtowns of the Midwest, and to a lesser degree, the Northwest. It’s tough for any established body (ask IBM or any of the legacy airline carriers such as Pan Am) to adjust to rapid change and dis-establishment. Mainline Protestantism has been slow to come to grips with its dis-established status and with the newly competitive religious/spiritual marketplace.
A part of this is the leadership question. Mostly congregations thrive when they have gifted, competent, wise, and appealing people at the helm and in the pulpit. For some time now, mainline Protestantism has failed to attract the needed number of such folks.
And there’s a reason for this. While in the period between 1970 and 2000 the incomes for lawyers and doctors doubled, the income for clergy stayed what it had been or declined. Meanwhile, most would-be clergy came out of seminary with an average educational debt of well over $100,000. When you do the math, you find fewer and fewer mainline clergy can actually support themselves or a family. Or to put it another way, fewer and fewer mainline churches (by some estimates only about 70 percent) can support a full-time minister. That is a structural and systemic issue, one of those that liberal leaders have been loath to face honestly.
Another structural issue is that the large majority of liberal Protestant churches have been small in size, that is under 200 members. In the 1970-2000 period, the smaller church has become significantly less viable for two reasons: the high cost of health care for church staff and clergy, and the rising cost of heating a church. The result is that larger churches are more viable and churches are getting larger. This, again, is a systemic issue that denominations have been slow to face. Just as the Mom and Pop grocery store is mostly a thing of the past, the neighborhood church, at least those that lack parking, is in a tough spot.
So, I agree with Douthat that liberal churches need to discover a religious reason for their own existence (not just an ethical one). But it's not just that. It is also coming to grips with dis-establishment, figuring out how to provide an adequate supply of gifted leaders, and facing the economics of scale that affect all sorts of operations including schools and churches.
All of these systemic issues are part of the challenge facing liberal Christianity in the twenty-first century.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Thu, Jul 19, 9:38 a.m. Inappropriate
I have another suggestion to help religion regain a place in the broader public discourse. Some years ago there was a television show featuring a leading religious figure from Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant faiths. The show displayed tolerance, different perspectives, and relevance. Why not revive such a "Three Tenors," perhaps on radio or on one of the smaller commercial tv stations?
Posted Thu, Jul 19, 9:25 p.m. Inappropriate
Tony: The future of mainline religion was much debated at Century 21. Have you ever read the book that came out of a symposium held in conjunction with the fair, "Space Age Christianity?" It was an attempt to find a path of relevance for religion in the "age of science." I'd be very interested in your take on how they wrestled with this question. Even then it was noted that mainline churches were declining while Billy Graham was packing them in at the fair, and elsewhere.
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 12:53 a.m. Inappropriate
The problem with churches on the left and right is their message. They'll both continue to retreat into irrelevance unless they change it.
For both sides, the message is judgment. Conservative churches preach judgment on sexual issues and individual morality. Liberal churches preach judgment on things like racism, "social justice" -- collective morality. And most dutiful parishoners of these churches are the self-righteous types who are quite proud of their fantastic personal acheivements in these areas. They're typically the only ones who can stomach to listen to the preaching about all the horrible sinners in our society (either greedy, racist Republicans or perverted, abortionist Democrats, depending on your denomination) as they all nod along and pat themselves on that back, thinking "good thing that's not me!"
And that's why 80% of people in urban areas have concluded that religion simply isn't for them. These people are in need of grace, and church is the last place on earth you'd go looking for something like that!
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 12:54 a.m. Inappropriate
Having just listened to University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt discuss our moral values at Town Hall, it is my theory that progressive/mainline churches have entered decline because of a disproportionate emphasis on the moral value associated with fairness, or the term "justice" as it is phrased in the progressive church.
Haidt identifies six moral values:
1) Care/harm: ... It underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.
2) Fairness/cheating: This foundation is related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. ... It generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy.
3) Liberty/oppression: This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people feel toward those who dominate them and restrict their liberty. ... The hatred of bullies and dominators motivates people to come together, in solidarity, to oppose or take down the oppressor.
4) Loyalty/betrayal: ... It underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. ...
5) Authority/subversion: ... It underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.
6) Sanctity/degradation: ... It underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
{NOTE: the above is borrowed from the site: www.moralfoundations.org}
Liberals (Progressive churches) tend to hold and emphasize morals associate with the first three -- kindness/caring, fairness/justice, liberty/oppression. Conservatives (Evangelicals) value all six with loyalty/betrayal, authority, and sanctity emphasized more highly.
And this is the reason why Conservative/Evangelicals will emphasize themes such as the persecution of Christianity/reverence of the martyrs, deferment to the inerrant authority of the Bible, and the sanctity of institutions, e.g. marriage, Bible. These align with the moral values that are highly valued.
It should also be said that Progressives/Liberals with their de-emphasis of morals of authority and loyalty are more opening to questioning and new experiences and thus are capable of modifying their religious beliefs. This may be the reason why many Progressive/Liberals church goers fall away because they are drawn to alternate religious experiences and are willing to incorporate elements of other religions to create their own form of religiosity, e.g. zen, yoga, etc.
So how to resurrect the mainline church? If one believes Haidt, it is not possible if they retain only their three "Progressive" values.
Perhaps the mainline church needs to take a lesson from Christ himself who preached and practiced inclusion--reaching out to the tax collector, leper, Samaritan and outcast. Perhaps the mainline churches need find a way to reach to those who value all six morals rather than just the three that they've come to be known by.
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 8:55 a.m. Inappropriate
Perhaps the decline of these churches has more to do with the arrogance of clerics such as Robinson, who are eager to tell us what "God" is not interested in--"..here's a surprise--- (not) chiefly interested in America's culture wars". Yet the telephone to heaven seems always to be busy when they attempt to tell us convincingly what God might be interested in. We aren't losing something precious; we are losing subservience to a self-proclaimed clerical elite. And good riddance.
Posted Fri, Jul 20, 10:38 p.m. Inappropriate
I'd be interested in hearing how those would-be pastors who are graduating with $100K in student debt are going to make the salaries they need to pay off that debt. Because their salaries will come from the very churches that are experiencing lower membership and therefore lower funding.
Posted Sat, Jul 21, 11:22 p.m. Inappropriate
Wait . . .
"Ethics is certainly one part of a religion, but arguably not the most important or even the primary part. That would be beliefs and teaching about God, or faith and theology."
I think Ms Bass would say that this is exactly backwards. The primary part of an authentic faith life is not intellectual assent to beliefs or teachings, it's what you do. If churches (liberal, conservative, alien, orange, whatever) are going to insist on beliefs and teachings as the PRIMARY thing, they're going to be making like the dinosaurs soon. There's no dogma in anything Jesus said -- just a lot of very difficult questions . . . maybe the reason churches are seeing membership decline has to do with focusing on beliefs and teaching instead of mentoring people about how to live out those difficult questions.
Posted Sun, Jul 22, 12:27 p.m. Inappropriate
One thing I imagine to be a financial burden on these organizations is their legacy real-estate, ie. old churches that go back 100, 150, 200 years or more. I used to live in Capitol Hill where it seems every block has a small, beautiful 100-year-old church. A few have been converted for new uses (for example, condos and an office on 16th and... John? I forget the exact cross street. Right next to Group Health), but most seem to still be hosting their small congregations.
Preservationists would be horrified, but perhaps these organizations would be better off taking a page from the mega-church playbook and sell off this old real estate and consolidate in a single central location. A quick Google search shows there are (for example) eleven United Methodist churches north of downtown in Seattle. Perhaps a single location with a single minister and a single heating bill would be more efficient.
Of course, that would mean shattering small but important communities that have formed over generations.
Posted Tue, Jul 24, 11:33 a.m. Inappropriate
"..shattering small but important communities.." Note that there really has not been a shortage of evangelists, especially the television variety, who can and do inspire a large audience. These "virtual churches" create an economic entity that can be sustained and even grow. But I think the value of religion to our society depends a lot on the mutually acquainted congregation of the relatively small church. Good article, Mr. Robinson.
Posted Wed, Jul 25, 11:03 a.m. Inappropriate
No one yet has made the point that all religion is doomed. The fastest growing "religion" reported on surveys is NONE.
True, big box religions seem to be growing, like the utterly disgusting Mars Hill, but overall, humanity is sloughing off the shackles of religion.
Traveling to Europe, one can see the heartening re-purposing of church properties into cultural centers, music halls, and museums where all humans are welcome. This is the future of our country--we are just a bit behind.
Posted Thu, Jul 26, 10:17 a.m. Inappropriate
My quip is that Christianity like Capitalism is a great ideology that few of its adherents put to practice.
So, in Christianity we have these insurmountable principals...for example, the man with two coats (Luke 3:11). He is encouraged to give the man with no coat one of them. I don't see how you can escape this as an example of sharing your possessions when you have a surplus. Yet at the same time, it encourages individual charity -- it doesn't say to go out and build a welfare state apparatus to take the second coat from the 2-coat guy and give it to the 0-coat guy.
Posted Sat, Jul 28, 2:52 p.m. Inappropriate
Using "liberal" and "Christianity" side-by-side seems to be an oxymoron, for - in general - organized religion seems to be focused on the single, conservative issue of abortion, their approach being to go beyond the freedom to disagree by forcing their human opinion on it onto other humans, which smacks of overreach to this person. It's also my impression that actions that include leaving leaflets on parishioner's/guest's vehicles, preaching from the pulpit, and organizing and participating in bus fleets converging on Olympia in an effort to get favorable legislation on abortion breaches the so-called separation and state and hence should result in removal of their tax exemption. I also wonder why there isn't equal - or seemingly any - vigor expressed over the fairly well-hidden carnage (death, injury, etc.) in the two "nation-building" and off-budget wars, the impacts of which are far more wide-reaching beyond their dollar costs, with many ramifications (tangible and intangible costs) not yet known. In summary, I don't see a lot of "liberal" - which I associate with caring, trying to understand the other person's situation, belief in good intentions, etc. being in short supply. Mr. Robinson is an exception to this rule, and I'm glad he is continuing to speak out in what has tended to become a judgmental, no-shades-of-gray environment.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.