Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[rug]

By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: July 14, 2012

IN 1998, John Shelby Spong, then the reliably controversial Episcopal bishop of Newark, published a book entitled “Why Christianity Must Change or Die.” Spong was a uniquely radical figure — during his career, he dismissed almost every element of traditional Christian faith as so much superstition — but most recent leaders of the Episcopal Church have shared his premise. Thus their church has spent the last several decades changing and then changing some more, from a sedate pillar of the WASP establishment into one of the most self-consciously progressive Christian bodies in the United States.

As a result, today the Episcopal Church looks roughly how Roman Catholicism would look if Pope Benedict XVI suddenly adopted every reform ever urged on the Vatican by liberal pundits and theologians. It still has priests and bishops, altars and stained-glass windows. But it is flexible to the point of indifference on dogma, friendly to sexual liberation in almost every form, willing to blend Christianity with other faiths, and eager to downplay theology entirely in favor of secular political causes.

Yet instead of attracting a younger, more open-minded demographic with these changes, the Episcopal Church’s dying has proceeded apace. Last week, while the church’s House of Bishops was approving a rite to bless same-sex unions, Episcopalian church attendance figures for 2000-10 circulated in the religion blogosphere. They showed something between a decline and a collapse: In the last decade, average Sunday attendance dropped 23 percent, and not a single Episcopal diocese in the country saw churchgoing increase.

This decline is the latest chapter in a story dating to the 1960s. The trends unleashed in that era — not only the sexual revolution, but also consumerism and materialism, multiculturalism and relativism — threw all of American Christianity into crisis, and ushered in decades of debate over how to keep the nation’s churches relevant and vital.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/douthat-can-liberal-christianity-be-saved.html?_r=2&hp

Ross Douthat is a republican stalwart of long standing. This sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[cbayer]

1. His theory is full of holes here.

While there is certainly data to support decrease in church attendance, his arguments that this is due to churches embracing liberal agendas are hollow, imo.

If anything, with the recent changes in the Episcopal church, I would predict an upswing in membership and attendance.

[longship]

2. A bit of confirmation bias with a dose of post hoc ergo propter hoc

I agree with you on this. His arguments don't really pan out.

Plus, my confirmation bias wants liberal churches to be thriving.

And when they do, I will attribute it solely to their liberal theology.

[cbayer]

3. I share your confirmation bias.

I remain hopeful that they can take it back from them that stole it.

Happy Sunday, longship! See you in church.

[longship]

5. As always, in church.

[Leontius]

4. There is a great danger to hoping for a 'liberal theology' to be

what makes a congregation a success. The increase in nondenominational churches is in large part because there is a fire in them, the fire of the spirit of God, most would say. You may laugh and pour ridicule on such an idea as superstitious mumbojumbo but it is my experience of the people who attend these churches this is what drives them. This is the experience they seek in their spiritual life. Do these people tend to be politically conservative, yes, not totally but a large majority are and they also tend to be politically inactive for the most part and tend to be I think more susceptible to guidance from authority. That tendency is the real danger and that is where the fight must be focused. These are the same people that for most of this country's history provided the Democratic party with the foot soldiers in the fight to guide this country. They feel under attack, they feel threatened, they feel forgotten by the very people who have should have their support and their interests at heart. True or not this is what drives their political actions. This feeling of alienation has been seized on and is constantly reinforced by crafty and manipulative Republican leaning pastors and politicians. Continue to hope for the return of 'liberal theology' as a strong power in the Church, continue to dismiss their concerns as just bigoted and reactionary and we will see this country become something none of us want it to become.

[longship]

6. Not sure what to make of your post here.

I am going to have to digest it and consider what you are trying to say.

Please do not respond immediately. I need some time to consider. I think I disagree, but I want to make sure. Too much chair throwing here already.

It's late and it's been a long, hot day. I'll post another response tomorrow after I've set my head down.

Okay? Keep tuned to this station. I'll be back. I want to give your post some thought, even though I think I may disagree.

Thx

[Plantaganet]

7. "...an idea as superstitious mumbojumbo"

Is it still a racist term when used by a believer?

Just curious.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. "Ross Douthat’s ‘concern-trolling for liberal Christianity’"

A round-up of the responses - Douthat is pretty much taken to the cleaners:

Kilgore was not impressed, writing:

Instead of lecturing “liberal Christians” about our alleged lack of serious spirituality and advising us on how to put more posteriors in the pews and more money in the coffers, perhaps Ross Douthat should spend his time proctoring conservative Christians who attend churches he actually knows something about, and whose growing tendency to conflate the Gospels with the agenda of the American conservative movement and the Republican Party could use some critical attention.

Daniel Burke points out several of Douthat’s factual errors and mistaken assertions about the Episcopal Church. Yes, several (nice job New York Times!).

And Rachel Held Evans responds less to Douthat’s article than to the ugly culture-war cheerleading it typifies, provokes and reinforces:

I was disheartened to see my Facebook and Twitter feeds light up with gleeful jeers from conservative evangelicals essentially saying, “let the liberals die!” followed by defensive responses from more progressive Mainliners reminding them, “we may be dying but we’re taking you with us!”

...
It seems as though Douthat’s real complaint is not that these churches lack conviction, but that he personally doesn’t like the substance of those convictions. Morice-Brubaker pounds this point home by offering one description of the firm core convictions of some “liberal Christians”:

“From what we know of him, Jesus resisted the self-important piety of the powerful, and stood instead with the ones they were oppressing, and in so doing revealed how God is. Therefore, I think following Jesus means doing the same in the very different context in which I live, and specifically resisting the institutional sexism and institutional homophobia which have informed so much of Christian piety. This will mean that I can’t spin romantic and rosy tales about What The Church Has Always Taught. It may not be popular. But I believe it to be true.”

This is a theological claim about who God is and what Jesus reveals about God. It is a principle. It is one that it’s possible to hold, and defend, at great cost to oneself. It’s a claim around which communities can gather. You can teach it to your kids. Worship services can be constructed around it. It can, and does, inspire people to do things that are hard and unrewarding. You can care about it so much that popularity becomes secondary.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahmoricebrubaker/6187/for_douthat,_church_either_uncompromising_or_a_secular_den_of_promiscuity_and_irrelevance/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/07/18/ross-douthats-concern-trolling-for-liberal-christianity/

[cbayer]

9. Yes he has. There are at least half a dozen well written responses to his piece,

and every one of them just picks him apart.

He is totally transparent.

[mmonk]

10. My response to Douthat. I haven't heard if it will be published yet.

Saving Douthat

As someone who has grown up in the Roman Catholic faith but attended an Episcopal high school, my impression upon reading the condescending attacks on the Episcopal Church by Ross Douthat in the op ed "Saving Liberal Christianity" was how sad it seemed. It seems he is not much interested in interfaith dialogue as he is in launching another tired and worn attack on all the usual cliche things the right loves to blame for any of life's problems no matter the cause. You know, liberals, the 60's, multiculturalism, relativism, along with things these do not represent such as consumerism and materialism (more commonly associated with the right). He claims dismissing dogma leaves a philosophy, not a faith. Well I can tell him what faith isn't. Faith isn't dogma, it's knowing. And dogma without knowing is a shell. It becomes merely a belief.

For those who decide to leave the field of faith for political power, I suggest they measure their words carefully if their weapon of choice is dogma alone. They must deal with the appearances of hypocrisy they may end up with. For instance, should one choose the laws in Leviticus or the words,examples, and deeds of Jesus? Can one be universal and at the same time be exclusive? Can one rub elbows with the money changers for power while claiming a duty to the poor and downtrodden they crush? Hurtful words and the bearing of false witness have their own pitfalls. Or would it be better to continue interfaith dialogue and work for a better world for all without feeling threatened? I would pick the latter or your faith isn't strong.