An interesting article linked below on how the Episcopal Church has declined in size over the last decade, even as it has grown more progressive and liberal. A few thoughts on my part:
1. A substantial amount of that decline is, from my observations, from more conservative Christians who have left the denomination because of its liberal evolution. That's to be expected. (What has not happened is a substantial pick-up of folks leaving more conservative denominations; it's happened, but not in numbers enough to match those who leave.)
2. It's also coming in the context of an overall decline in organized religion, especially Christianity, in America. Regular church attendance is down all over, except for rah-rah mega-churches that have their own issues to grapple with, including reducing numbers of younger folks staying with the organized faith. (Most of the mega-churches as well barely constitute organized relgion except on a local scale, and tend to be much more leader/personality focused than what Americans would consider traditional denominiations.)
The success of a faith is not about sheer numbers (virtue is not a majority decision), but it's worth giving some thought. The observation that, by not adhering to and promoting a strong religious ideology liberal Christians aren't offering anything that liberal secular organizations do is an interesting one. The virtue (IMO) of not be oppressively dogmatic can be taken to the point of not representing anything at all.
I don't think the Episcopal Church is there, but, liturgy aside, it should be considering what it does want to stand for in a religious fashion, not just in the (very worthy nonetheless) idea of serving and loving our neighbors. Otherwise there are plenty of other way to do so that don't involve getting up early on Sunday mornings.
Embedded Link
Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?
The more progressive the Episcopal Church becomes, the more it shrinks.
Google+: View post on Google+
Dave, I’m going to go out on a limb here to suggest that the decline of Progressive congregations might have more to do with a lack of proselytizing than with a rejection by their members of “weak liberal ideology”.
Crazy as that might sound, I have a solid reason for suggesting it. I have read that the Conservative mega-churches typically have huge turn-over rates in membership. Some turn over half their congregation every ten years. Now, if that is true, those churches are growing because they are finding new members at a rate faster than they are losing old members.
I would suggest that, if the Progressive churches proselytized as aggressively as the Conservative churches, the Progressive churches would at least match and might even exceed the growth rates of the Conservatives.
Those are my thoughts on it, at any rate.
@Paul – I don’t think I answered your comment, though I meant to.
That is probably part of it. And a big part of that is that proselytizing is disliked intensely in many progressive/mainstream Christian communities — certainly among Episcopalians.
And a big part of that is that normal proselytization is an intensely hubristic activity. “Listen to me! I know God! Hang out with me and you’ll know God, too! Guaranteed!” I couldn’t say those words with a clear conscience because I know my own knowledge of God is so damnably (a metaphor, I hope) limited.
And the folks who proselytize most are the most obnoxious of the Christian crowds, selling Jesus like soap flakes.
As Bertrand Russell put it, “The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”
Being full of doubt is, I think, a good thing. But it doesn’t sell pews well.
I'm unhappy to hear that an expression of Christianity which raises human values is receding at the expense of a more violent, political kind. It seems plain to me that we will not leap to the relative safety of a humanistic, secular society in one go. The best path would be the erosion of Jingoistic, loyalty-oath Christianity to the benefit of the more humanistic kind, attended by gradually improving quality of life. instead it seems we will have to wait for the alarm clock which uses destruction as its bell.
Hmmm. More depressing than I'd put it, but with an element of truth, +George Wiman.
If it helps, the the "jingoistic, loyalty-oath Christianity" is not in real growth, either. The mega-mall style churches — the only ones with any growth stories — are more Rotary Clubs than actual religious expressions. I expect them to last as long as the current surburban demographics.
My suspicion is that liberal Christianity will recede to a point. Some groups will dwindle away to the extent that they stop being religious per se (the charge/concern the author raises about ECUSA, though I think it's overstating the matter). Groups that maintain an identity and a reason for it will continues, though at a diminished size.
I think the same will be true for most religious organizations, assuming society continues to evolve/trend as currently. If there are significant social and economic upheavals, though, all trends are out.
" If there are significant social and economic upheavals, though, all trends are out."
Past upheaval examples suggest they boost religion, and not the life-enhancing kind.
+George Wiman, sadly, yup. People seek security, the strength of the tribe, and simple answers to solve the crises of the day.
And perhaps that's part of the decline of (organized) religion in the West — that we are in aggregate fairly prosperous and there is less need for people to pray to a distant God to save them from the current famine, plague, etc.
If we shrink too much and disappear, it will have been meant to be. I do not believe we will, and still have much hope. Bishop Little of Northern Indiana was quoted as saying that the decision on the blessing of same sex unions would put us outside of mainstream Christianity. When I look around at what passes for mainstream Christianity these days, from Bryan Fischer to the USCCB, I don’t think being outside of that is a bad thing.
@Ellie – The Early Christians were outside the mainstream and a small number. And, I suspect, much closer to Christ’s teaching than Constantine and all his Councils.
Ellie, you are the Mainline: vapid, prim and simpering on how glad you are that you’re not like everyone else. How precious that you’ve shared your special charism with the rest of us.
And what’s with the “+” sign? Are you suggesting he has some special status? Didn’t we do away with aristocracy?
Very glad to be an atheist. What a freak show.
@GeorgeWaite – I don’t understand your comment on Ellie’s “mainline” bit — are you suggesting that there’s a problem with not considering yourself part of a mainstream you disagree with? An odd stance for an atheist.
I didn’t find anything about Ellie’s comment to be vapid, prim, or simpering.
The “+” above (to the the other George W.) is an artifact of those comments coming in from the original thread on Google+, not any sort of aristocratic shorthand. Though sometimes “+” signs are used (esp. in religious discussions, at least in Episcopal circles) as shorthand for various clerical levels (in lieu of noting someone is a priest or a bishop or an archbishop).