Paul writes – Peter
Carrell directed my attention to an interesting article titled: Faith Matters: Where Did the Mainline Go Wrong? It’s written by Walter Russell Mead.
Now I’m not necessarily commending it in its entirety, but
for me at least, it asks some good questions. Questions too often not asked. Al Roxburgh, Dorothy
Butler-Bass and others, including myself, would resist any attempt to write-off
mainline denominations and mainline congregations, but we’d all likely agree there are some very significant
challenges facing aging, and largely irrelevant (certainly to those under 40
years of age).
We’d probably also agree that some mainline congregations won’t make it beyond the next 10-years
or so; buildings will be unable to be maintained and will be abandoned. I saw a
former Anglican church in the weekend that is now a house. Old mainline church
buildings are being reconditioned and being used for all kinds of other
activities (cafe’s, breweries, art galleries etc) all over the Western world.
In the town I live in, a former church building is now a cafe and retail shop
selling souvenirs etc. I’d hazard a guess that none in the congregation, at its
height and early stages of decline, would have every imagined their “church” would be used in the way
it now is.
Here are some excerpts from the article:
“... At the same time, to stoutly insist that the mainline
churches are healthy today strikes me as despair masked in denial. It is not OK that more and more local
congregations are grimly struggling with deferred maintenance, dwindling
membership and marginal budgets. It is not OK that the mainline churches
no longer play the kind of role in public debate or intellectual discourse that
they did thirty or fifty years ago. It is not OK that the mainline
churches have gotten locked into an antagonistic relationship with most of the
church in the developing world. It is not OK that the decline of old
models of organization and ministry are far gone in decay but that new
alternatives are still struggling to emerge. It is not OK that so many
young people raised in the church leave never to return, and that few come from
outside to replace them. It is not OK that two generations of theological and
liturgical innovations introduced with a conscious intention of making the
church more relevant, more approachable and ultimately well, larger, have left
the churches smaller and less relevant than before...
If all religions are more or less true (and, presumably,
therefore, all more or less false), why pay particular attention to any one of
them? If the churches develop their ethical standards (sex before
marriage, divorce, homosexuality, racial justice, political ideas) from secular
society and the general American consensus, why go to church for anything
except weddings, funerals and Christmas carols? What do you learn in church that you can learn nowhere else? What
kind of relationships do you form in church that you can form nowhere else?
Why is churchgoing so
important to you that you will not only go there no matter what — but that you will do everything in
your power to encourage your friends and neighbours to join you? Why is
church the daily bread you must have, not a lovely garnish on an already full
plate?
A sustainable
religion must have answers to these questions. Otherwise it will slowly
fade away...”
You can read the whole article here.
Comments