The Catch-22 for Liberal Protestantism

[DC Al Fine]

Rod Dreher discusses Liberal Protestantism's problem: people need to be progressive to find Liberal Protestantism attractive, but progressive people are more attracted by secularism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who reject Evangelicals' message tend to be more progressive, and these people should be prime candidates for Mainline/Liberal churches but these churches keep shrinking and losing their young people*. Why? With progressivism comes secularism. Your typical progressive, even if they believe in God, is far less religiously committed than the religious conservatives.

Liberals' appeal seems limited to a relatively small proportion of people; the Scott's & Nathan's of the world, but it's hard to see the faith become a mass religion again. As Evangelicals peak and decline like Mainlines before them, how can Liberals capitalize on the discontent?

*For the record: I think the decline will stabilize eventually all the culturally Mainlines either die off or quit the church and a smaller base of Mainline believers will remain. From there they should see modest growth

[ZuWo]

I definitely see how Dreher arrives at his conclusion. I go to an evangelical church that most would probably describe as conservative. Indeed, I have observed that among those young people in my church who eventually leave Christianity behind there are quite a few who first join more liberal churches. In a way, these progressive churches function as an intermediate step on these people's way out of faith.

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I agree that it is a problem, and while this doesn't reflect flaws with liberal Protestant theology, it reflects on how progressives perceive religion in general.  I know I'm oversimplifying things, but if progressives feel their only choices are a "mean, hateful" God, or secularism, then they'll go with secularism.  Since conservative Christianity has dominated Christian perspectives on religion, progressives see no point in associating themselves with it.

How often do we hear about the UCC's protests for social justice?  How often do we hear about churches passing resolutions to become open and affirming to homosexuals?  Unless you actually stay current on religious affairs in the world rather than pick up the paper or watch CNN all day, chances are you haven't.

Shallow as it may sound; if the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition were founded by people like Karen Armstrong and John Shelby Spong, I think things would have turned out very differently.

[TDAS04]

Most people as socially liberal as me are quite secular, and certainly would not understand my desire to belong to a mainline denomination.  I might as well be Patrick in Scott's signature.

The good thing is that there are still plenty of moderate-to-liberal Protestants here in the Upper Midwest.  Minnesota and Iowa are fairly strong churchgoing states, but have gay marriage. 

[Blue3]

Rod Dreher discusses Liberal Protestantism's problem: people need to be progressive to find Liberal Protestantism attractive, but progressive people are more attracted by secularism.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

People who reject Evangelicals' message tend to be more progressive, and these people should be prime candidates for Mainline/Liberal churches but these churches keep shrinking and losing their young people*. Why? With progressivism comes secularism. Your typical progressive, even if they believe in God, is far less religiously committed than the religious conservatives.

Liberals' appeal seems limited to a relatively small proportion of people; the Scott's & Nathan's of the world, but it's hard to see the faith become a mass religion again. As Evangelicals peak and decline like Mainlines before them, how can Liberals capitalize on the discontent?

*For the record: I think the decline will stabilize eventually all the culturally Mainlines either die off or quit the church and a smaller base of Mainline believers will remain. From there they should see modest growth

Secularism is NOT not being affiliated with a church. It just means they're independent of a church. You can be affiliated with a church, and believe in separation of church and state (be secular). You can not be affiliated with a church, and not be secular.

You're not less religiously committed if you don't belong to a church, or if you're secular. Neither of these 3 things equals each other.


Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

And the numbers of unaffiliated, liberal Christians is expected to grow... not shrink.

I think there's already more liberal Christians than conservation Christians, among the Millennial generation.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I know I'm oversimplifying things, but if progressives feel their only choices are a "mean, hateful" God, or secularism, then they'll go with secularism.  Since conservative Christianity has dominated Christian perspectives on religion, progressives see no point in associating themselves with it

I don't think this is the main reason why progressives are less religious, though. Sure, there are those who are turned off by religion because they associate it with the religious right. But I think the main factor is the fact that progressivism, as it has always been but probably more so than ever, is correlated with a rationalist/secular viewpoint. This is not to say that religious progressives are not "true" progressives, of course.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Progressives are leaving mainline Protestant churches for the same reasons that conservatives are leaving mainline churches: excessive, contemporary, atomistic individualism, which is celebrated by much of society, as well as the desire for instant gratification from "direct experience" and the decline of doubt, uncertainty, ambiguity, restraint,  and self-reflection-which in the modern, "polarized" landscape of politics and the "Culture Wars", is a big part of why mainline Protestants look Moderate Hero by comparison to the clear choices of "Religious Right" and "Secular Left." Also, many of the "evangelical" non-denominational (which is itself, a rather recent phenomenon),mega-churches are so successful precisely because they are "relevant" to the American suburban white middle-class shopping mall-and-interstate highway experience. The older, more liturgical, and traditional churches simply, more often than not, don't have the resources and/or the desire to "compete" in the mass society of American consumer-based, "Seeker-based" religion. For much of the same reason, Catholicism has also declined among the white suburban middle-class.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

A faith that is not shared with others is fairly useless.  Granted, I don't see liberal believers having their faith in lockstep with many others, which is why the megachurch phenomenon tends to be primarily one of evangelical churches.  Of course is some respects the mainline churches were the megachurches of their day.  I think the interest in a more personalized religious experience is responsible for a good deal of the shrinkage in the mainline churches, tho not all.  Take for example the ELCA: They suffered an outflow of some of their more conservative congregations in 2010 and 2011 and an even greater drop in membership numbers which suggests that the churches that left were on average larger than those who stayed.

Probably the optimum church size is in the 100-200 member range, which is smaller than what most mainline churches traditionally aimed for.

[DC Al Fine]

I agree that it is a problem, and while this doesn't reflect flaws with liberal Protestant theology, it reflects on how progressives perceive religion in general.  I know I'm oversimplifying things, but if progressives feel their only choices are a "mean, hateful" God, or secularism, then they'll go with secularism.  Since conservative Christianity has dominated Christian perspectives on religion, progressives see no point in associating themselves with it.

That explains the lack of converts, but mainline Protestantism's retention rate is pretty bad as well. I assume someone raised in the UCC would be more aware of its social justice activities.

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

And the numbers of unaffiliated, liberal Christians is expected to grow... not shrink.

I think there's already more liberal Christians than conservation Christians, among the Millennial generation.

1) Faith without action is pretty useless. Lots of people want to be environmentally friendly, but it's groups like Sierra Club and their active members that organize efforts for change. The same applies to mainline Protestantism. Religiously speaking mainlines, presumably want to take communion, get their kids baptized etc.

2) I'd dispute that many of those liberal Christians are actually liberal Christians. A large portion of the minority ones are theologically conservative (blacks tend to be more creationist than whites for example). Among the unaffiliated "Christians" a large portion affiliate for cultural reasons but are irreligious in all but name.  If you ask them about some very basic aspects of the faith  you'll get blank stares.

Also, many of the "evangelical" non-denominational (which is itself, a rather recent phenomenon),mega-churches are so successful precisely because they are "relevant" to the American suburban white middle-class shopping mall-and-interstate highway experience. The older, more liturgical, and traditional churches simply, more often than not, don't have the resources and/or the desire to "compete" in the mass society of American consumer-based, "Seeker-based" religion. For much of the same reason, Catholicism has also declined among the white suburban middle-class.

I'd add that the liturgical churches that do see success tend to separate from the world a little bit. Catholicism doesn't really do this anymore.

[Blue3]

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

And the numbers of unaffiliated, liberal Christians is expected to grow... not shrink.

I think there's already more liberal Christians than conservation Christians, among the Millennial generation.

Faith without action is pretty useless.

Who says you need to belong to a church to take action?

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

A faith that is not shared with others is fairly useless.  Granted, I don't see liberal believers having their faith in lockstep with many others, which is why the megachurch phenomenon tends to be primarily one of evangelical churches.  Of course is some respects the mainline churches were the megachurches of their day.  I think the interest in a more personalized religious experience is responsible for a good deal of the shrinkage in the mainline churches, tho not all.  Take for example the ELCA: They suffered an outflow of some of their more conservative congregations in 2010 and 2011 and an even greater drop in membership numbers which suggests that the churches that left were on average larger than those who stayed.

Probably the optimum church size is in the 100-200 member range, which is smaller than what most mainline churches traditionally aimed for.

A faith not shared by others is useless for what?

And why do you assume that not belonging to a church means you don't share your faith with others?

[DemPGH]

I see a slow, steady decline over the next century or so that's going to be pretty hard to turn around. That said, there will be people who view Christianity as a stabilizer in their personal lives or an edifying force, like a really good movie, but I do see a continued, steady decline. The problem is that morals and knowledge can much more easily come from other sources.

The big problem for "liberal Christianity" is that, sure, there are passages in the Bible that you can make fit into, if you push real, real hard, what we call modern liberalism, but most liberals are not going to see a need to do it. Why bother? The Ten Commandments, for ex., have no relationship to modernity whatsoever aside from theft and murder. And prohibitions against theft and murder are shared far and wide outside religion for all sorts of good reasons. And so on. Even if it's a "liberal church," you still deal with the Bible, the stories, the ancient morals, the parables (which directly relate to things going on at the time), etc. And there are some, as who post here, who may not even see Jesus Christ as that significant, certainly sans the supernatural. And as with me, when you don't believe in the supernatural, there's really little point to it.

You know, maybe there's a God, maybe there isn't, and if there is, that God is personal, as God always was personal. Tribes and teachers and priests have always assigned to God the attributes that they saw around them and valued. An angry, vengeful God fit the culture. A Deistic God fit that culture. And on and on. Maybe God texts and listens to Katy Perry? I mean, I remember the joke about the hole in the roof of Texas stadium - so God can watch the Cowboys.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

A faith that is not shared with others is fairly useless.

A faith not shared by others is useless for what?

And why do you assume that not belonging to a church means you don't share your faith with others?

Unless you share your faith, then you'll have very little impact on the actions of others. Even if the group you share you faith with doesn't have a building to call its own and a regular schedule of events, I would still call that a church, tho there certainly are benefits to both, especially having a regular time for sharing your faith.

[Blue3]

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

A faith that is not shared with others is fairly useless.

A faith not shared by others is useless for what?

And why do you assume that not belonging to a church means you don't share your faith with others?

Unless you share your faith, then you'll have very little impact on the actions of others. Even if the group you share you faith with doesn't have a building to call its own and a regular schedule of events, I would still call that a church, tho there certainly are benefits to both, especially having a regular time for sharing your faith.

What kind of impact on the actions of others are you talking about? As an unaffiliated Christian, you can still participate in public service, volunteer, donate to charity, work in homeless shelters and soup kitchens, organize donation drives, etc. And you don't have to do those things with people who have the exact same beliefs as you.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

A faith that is not shared with others is fairly useless.

A faith not shared by others is useless for what?

And why do you assume that not belonging to a church means you don't share your faith with others?

Unless you share your faith, then you'll have very little impact on the actions of others. Even if the group you share you faith with doesn't have a building to call its own and a regular schedule of events, I would still call that a church, tho there certainly are benefits to both, especially having a regular time for sharing your faith.

What kind of impact on the actions of others are you talking about? As an unaffiliated Christian, you can still participate in public service, volunteer, donate to charity, work in homeless shelters and soup kitchens, organize donation drives, etc. And you don't have to do those things with people who have the exact same beliefs as you.

All those things you list are examples of ethical beliefs in action, yet not one of them is an act of faith.  Do you ever discuss with others your viewpoint on God and how you interact with the Divine?  While religion can be a powerful motivator for ethical behavior, Works are not the same as Faith.

[Blue3]

Why do "liberal Christians" 'need' to belong to churches? Can they not be just as influential as individual, voting citizens?

A faith that is not shared with others is fairly useless.

A faith not shared by others is useless for what?

And why do you assume that not belonging to a church means you don't share your faith with others?

Unless you share your faith, then you'll have very little impact on the actions of others. Even if the group you share you faith with doesn't have a building to call its own and a regular schedule of events, I would still call that a church, tho there certainly are benefits to both, especially having a regular time for sharing your faith.

What kind of impact on the actions of others are you talking about? As an unaffiliated Christian, you can still participate in public service, volunteer, donate to charity, work in homeless shelters and soup kitchens, organize donation drives, etc. And you don't have to do those things with people who have the exact same beliefs as you.

All those things you list are examples of ethical beliefs in action, yet not one of them is an act of faith.  Do you ever discuss with others your viewpoint on God and how you interact with the Divine?  While religion can be a powerful motivator for ethical behavior, Works are not the same as Faith.

Yes, all the time, with family and friends, and people here on the Internet And I personally reflect on this a lot too. And I prefer talking to people who disagree with me, those are the most fruitful conversations.

Why should a person need or even want a church to do this?

And part of my faith is that God tries to bring, and will eventually bring, everyone into "heaven" and whether you believe Jesus is the Messiah or not in this life doesn't matter. All that matters is following Jesus, which means following Jesus's example and teachings, which means loving one another. Most unaffiliated Christians and liberal Christians (not always the same!) likely feel the same way on this point too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Regardless of if you agree with Starwatcher, what he's saying kind of proves the point. Many liberal Christians don't believe they need to go to church.

There's a famous speech where a Christian hardcore band frontman was giving a bit of a testimony during the set and at one point asked "Who here has been to church?" Obviously almost everyone in the room raised their hand. He then asked "How many here think it's boring?" Most people, including himself kept their hand raised. He then said "And if you haven't noticed, my hand is still up."

That said though, for many of the reasons mentioned, the future of liberal Protestantism does not lie in the established mainline churches, but the emergent church or liberal churches that are still more on the charismatic side*.

*Although it is worth noting that there are plenty of churches affiliated with a mainline denomination that still fall into these categories.

[Beet]

I think modern cultural liberals tend to be more on the individualistic side of the individualist/communitarian divide, as Progressive Realist was describing. We focus more on finding ourselves internally and coming to personal terms with our own interpretation of spirituality than doing it out of a sense of tradition or group belonging. This comes out of the 60s ethos. You can see it with the rise of the New Age movements of the 60s and their focus on personal meditation, direct experience, self-help and motivational psychology.

For example me. I'm a Christian, yet I belong to no church, and I feel no church's nature or doctrine represents my personal interpretation of Christianity. Nor does my faith terribly alter my actions on a day-to-day basis. It's what Ernest would call rather useless. Some of you won't even consider me a Christian when I tell you I haven't been baptized and I think the Baha'i Faith is awfully close to the truth as well. Nonetheless, it's the only faith I have.