Monday musing
Thank God, American Churches Are Dying
(WSJ Opinion essay: scroll down, way down, no really, WAY down, I did not write that headline, it was a Wall Street Journal contributor in Indiana).
However, this first part IS by me, Papa, Dad, Fr Tom, Uncle Bubba, Commander Weller, Carroll.
Sensationalist attention-grabbing headline aside, the WSJ essay is quite perceptive and apt. It is no secret that mainline denominational churches are declining in membership and have been declining for decades, maybe since not long after WW2 and the nineteen-fifties, in part as societies moved into modern and postmodern realizations and thinking.
The WSJ article, copy & paste below, is interesting and, I thought, important. Related (though I do not scroll Facebook, Linda does), is something she recently shared with me from Episcopalians On Facebook - - https://www.facebook.com/groups/Episcopalians/ - - which is both a discussion forum and also a place where one may ask for the prayers of others. Someone asked "What about the Episcopal Church needs to be changed?" I didn't read it or any of the responses, but Linda read this to me: someone wrote that three things should be eliminated:
THE CREED.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE VIRGIN BIRTH.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT, that Christ Died for the Sins of the World. This idea traces to the synoptic gospel dominical words in the Last Supper and especially to Paul, but "really took hold thanks to Anselm’s satisfaction theory of atonement in the 11th century. It is the idea that Jesus had to die a bloody and horrible death on the cross in order to save us from our sins, because God was offended by our sins and had to receive satisfaction, had to get a payback in order to forgive us. God’s honor was at stake."* (Anselm was Roman Catholic, an Italian whom the Pope appointed Archbishop of Canterbury 1093-1109).
*
http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201811/no-one-had-die-our-sins-31563
It is based in the feudal society of Anselm's day, when the ultimate authority was the feudal lord, to whom one owed total obedience and all property, including oneself. A vassal was the feudal Lord's property. There was no way for a vassal to pay a debt or make up for disobedience, because everything was the feudal lord's due and anything the vassal did to make up was already owed to, and is the property of, the feudal lord in the first place. Applying the sociological theologically (as Anselm did to try and explain the outrageous idea that God had been put to death on Cross), there is nothing a Christian can do to atone for sin, nor can the entire human race atone for its sinfulness, because whatever penance one might do is already owed to God in the first place. This makes human atonement impossible, so Anselm's idea was that human sin debt, both individual and communal, could not be satisfied by any human means, but only by God himself, who graciously paid the debt himself by himself suffering death on the cross.
Perhaps the notion of a gracious and generous feudal lord was beyond Anselm's experience (I've not read his thesis and at this age still have too many other things to read).
A theological response to Anselm over the years is that his idea casts God as an unforgiving records-keeping Being obsessed with human sins, obsessed with a sense of absolute justice, and for whom absolution by mercy is not possible. But, like us, Anselm was a product of his age. Again, Anselm's idea is not to make God a monster, but applies the common sociological understanding and system of his day theologically to explain why God became man and suffered death on the cross. To modern and postmodern "man", Anselm's idea may seem outrageous; but it is still heartily with us, even built into our very Eucharistic Prayers that address Christ's "one oblation of himself once offered, a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice, oblation and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world", which I myself prayed at church yesterday morning. So if one believes that the doctrine should be dropped, one is taking on the total theological reform of the church. Not that such reformation is a bad idea, but in suggesting elimination of doctrines, one needs to realize and appreciate the institutional implications, that's all.
Comes to mind incidentally, the Time magazine cover and coverage a couple decades ago, that the Pope had considered taking the Blessed Virgin Mary into the Godhead. My light response at the time was that it would be a boon to ecclesiastical garment makers, an explosive demand for new vestments with Quadrinity Squares instead of Trinity Triangles. Some were outraged that the Pope thought he could change Fact; but the only fact is that he would only have been changing Belief. Of course, the Creed would have had to be amended too, and all our prayers, and there would have been an enormous demand for poets to add Marian verses to all the Trinity hymns.
That's trying to be facetious of course; but massive institutional implications of the Episcopalians on Facebook discussion apply as well to the other two doctrines nominated above for elimination.
A fading elderly Insignificant, I nevertheless and notwithstanding find myself still in agreement with Apple founder Steve Jobs, his famous commencement address in which he advised graduates to do their own thinking and not be controlled by the dogma, doctrines and thinking of others: I am just as intelligent and can think just as well as Constantine and the, innocently but nevertheless, certitudinous flat-earth bishops he assembled as the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, to decide Christian doctrine and settle it in the Nicene Creed. I mean, did you ever pause to read what you stand up and say every Sunday morning? And did you notice that you do not say We KNOW, you say We BELIEVE. Some sarcastic or angry atheist once remarked, "no amount of belief makes anything a fact". He's right even if we piously contemn the source.
IDK but that we hold to such orthodoxies as the Creed, and the other two doctrines named above for deletion, might be among reasons for the growth of the nondenominational church phenomenon discussed in the WSJ piece below. What I dislike about nondenominationalism is the idea that the local pastor, who may be a complete dimwit (look at Westboro Baptist Church), sets the group's theology, and what I've seen and think about that is that it's out of control; but maybe that's part of their idea, pastor as both dictator and populist. After all, this is America, where you can believe whatever nonsense you damn well please.
Anyway, I appreciated this WSJ opinion piece:
Sent from my OPINION | HOUSES OF WORSHIP
Thank God, American Churches Are Dying
As thousands close across the U.S., lively new congregations are taking their place.
As thousands of churches close across the U.S., many fret about the inevitable decline of faith in American life. Congregational demise is troubling, but underreported data suggest that fear of a secularizing America may be overwrought. A religious renewal could be on the horizon.
It’s true that denomination-based churches—Methodist, Baptist, Episcopal, Catholic—have been on a downward slope for years. But nondenominational evangelical churches are growing in number, from 54,000 in 1998 to 84,000 in 2012, according to the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Pew Research data show a similar trend continuing to the present, with steep declines among mainline churches as evangelical ones keep popping up. And 42% of these new congregations report growing attendance, data from Lifeway Research shows.
One reason for the success of the new evangelical congregations is their aggressive pursuit of growth, which they call “church multiplication”: A new church will commit to start several smaller churches in a short time. Dave Ferguson, president of the church leadership organization Exponential, tells me that church multiplication numbers are on the rise. In 2015 only 4% of churches were multiplying, according to research conducted for Exponential by Lifeway. Last year 7% were doing so. Each percentage point upward represents some 3,000 churches. Mr. Ferguson says that if this growth is maintained, “it will change the spiritual landscape.”
Those multiplication efforts aren’t only about increasing the number of churches. Fresh churches replacing and created from old ones, armed with modern ideas to attract and tend to a new generation of believers, can be exactly what a community needs.
“Sometimes churches die, and sometimes they should,” wrote Ed Stetzer of Wheaton College in 2018. “A new church, not a reboot of the old, should be started in its place.” The leaders taking Mr. Stetzer’s advice generally focus on creating churches that cater to specific needs. There is a church exclusively for employees of Disney World. Spanish-language services are more popular than ever. “House churches,” composed of neighbors meeting for informal services—usually in living rooms—are on the rise as well. Popular Christian leaders like Francis Chan, a former megachurch pastor who now advocates house churches, offer free training for this model.
Those with denominational affinity will be sad to see a certain kind of church fall away. But the success of new models shows significant groups of people looking for ways to live faithfully, albeit in a less structured way. Could this really signify a religious awakening?
Naysayers point to data showing millennials are significantly less religious than previous generations. Yet half of them are still in their 20s, and much of the reporting about their secular outlook ignores how age affects belief and practice. Every recent generation has experienced significant post-high-school drops in church attendance, but most wayward youths return after marrying and having children. Given that the average age for marriage has increased seven years since the 1940s, it’s too soon to dismiss millennials as godless.
And despite the rise of the “nones”—those who don’t identify with any religion—evangelical Protestants and Muslims are increasing in number. Christian and Muslim birthrates also outpace those of the nones, not that they should be written off anyway. The Billy Graham Center Institute found that this group is surprisingly open to attending church at a friend’s invitation, and most view faith as good for society. The largest population of nones are millennials, so these numbers offer a strong indication that many will return to faith and church in the future.
Much of the religious growth in America also stems from immigrant populations. Nestor Gudino, an immigrant from Argentina who opened a church in North Carolina, points to the power of the Hispanic church. “Everybody is putting their focus on the Hispanic community, even in the smallest towns, where sometimes there is more Hispanic population than you can even imagine,” he tells me over the phone. As the Hispanic share of the U.S. population grows, the percentage of practicing Christians should rise as well.
Complacency is dangerous, but it’s important to realize that religion in the U.S. is far from dead. With a vibrant, new church landscape on the scene, there will be no shortage of options to choose from as millions of Americans again find their footing in faith. A selection of churches may be dying, but their replacements are alive, well and regenerating in ways the American church has never seen before.
Ms. Andersen is a writer in Indianapolis.