If I had the chance to do my dissertation research today, instead of 2005, there are a few other churches I’d use in the study. One of them would surely be Common Table in Washington, D.C., where Mike Stavlund and Co. are doing what they can to embody the flat church that I hope for in my latest book. Here’s a something Mike wrote recently for the Emergent Village Blog:

Mike Stavlund

Listening to a recent ‘On Being’ podcast with the venerable and feisty Walter Brueggemann, I was struck by what seems at first to be rank overstatement.  His contention is that the ancient Hebrew ‘prophetic/poetic messengers’ serve to critique everything:  all political, social, and religious systems. In Brueggemann’s opinion, the worst thing we can do with these Biblical messages is to organize them, domesticate them, and to “create another ‘ism’”.

Surely, part of the reason emergence churches like Common Table don’t get more organized is because we lack that kind of drive and motivation.   We might get around to establishing a denomination, if we had the time to do it.  We might try to create some kind of legacy, it it wasn’t such a burdensome project.  No, we’re too busy with Twitter, Facebook, fixing our hair, and with finding the perfect hipster glasses to get much done.

via A Seat at The Table: Keep it Wild | Emergent Village.

Chris Heuertz, who has been faithfully running an anti-trafficking organization for two decades, has some advice for young, social justice-minded Christians who want to start a organization that will do good in the world: Don’t.

Chris Heuertz

About 8-10 times a year I get random calls from sincere 20-somethings asking me for advice about the non-profit organization they want to start. Usually these new, innovative ideas are cause-driven organizations that aim to help victims of human trafficking or women and children caught up in the commercial sex industry.

I don’t want to be a dream-killer, but in nearly every one of these scenarios my advice sounds something like this, “Please do not start another non-profit.”

Seriously.

Here’s why:
1) Most of the women and children who are victims of human trafficking or caught up in the commercial sex industry have already experienced so much trauma, loss and disappointment in their lives that your new, innovative idea for a non-profit will likely end up being another tragic disappoint they can not afford. On behalf of my friends and my co-workers who daily engage these women, do not do this to them, they’ve already suffered enough. Do not set people up to be let down again, they deserve better.

READ reasons 2-5 at Chris’s blog.

The current home of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Minnetonka, in Wayzata.

According to a federal law passed in 2000, the answer is basically yes.  To wit, a Unitarian Universalist church in Wayzata, Minnesota has won an out-of-court settlement to build a new church in the middle of a residential neighborhood, against the objections of the City of Wayzata:

In a church-state dispute with echoes across the country, a Wayzata congregation has won its battle to build a new church in a residential neighborhood.

The Unitarian Universalist Church of Minnetonka will be allowed to tear down a house and build a church and parking lot in its place, according to a federal court-mediated settlement reached last week between the church and the city of Wayzata.

To underscore the church’s victory, the settlement also requires the city and its insurer to pay the church $500,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.

The 2000 federal law under which the church sued Wayzata, which effectively allows religious projects to trump local zoning restrictions, is being tested in a growing number of communities around the country. Cases resulting in victories for congregations have cropped up in California, Maryland, Colorado and elsewhere.

In its 2010 federal suit, the Unitarian church also charged Wayzata with violating its First Amendment rights to free speech and religious worship.

My question is this: In this day and age, is it appropriate for churches to be built in residential neighborhoods? There is so much commercially-zoned property these days, it seems to me that churches should be built in those areas.

In other words, isn’t it more neighborly for a church to build in a commercial zone than in the middle of a residential neighborhood?

This post is part of a three-part series on The Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture by Christian Smith

The Ailment – The Cure – The Fatal Flaw

This is an extremely difficult post to write, primarily because I consider Christian Smith a friend.  I am a huge fan of his work, and I have admiringly cited him in almost all of my academic work.  Both his research and his theory are, I think, the very best in the sociology of American religion these days.

Also, I have stood in solidarity with him in the past as he struggled with the theology and policies of Young Life.  In fact, knowing something of his struggle in that regard, I am tempted to think that his struggles there led directly to this book.  And possibly to what I consider its fatal flaw.

Further, I think this is a very, very good book, and I’m glad that Brazos published it.  It is both well-written and well-researched, as are all of Smith’s books.

To summarize the posts of the last two days, Smith argues that biblicism, practiced by a large number of conservative evangelical Protestants in America, is an untenable position to hold.  It is, he argues, ultimately unreasonable.  For instance, biblicists claim that the Bible is without error, yet they seem unable to account for the myriad evangelical interpretations of a particular passage or issue in the text.

Instead, Smith proposes a christological hermeneutic, which he borrows from Karl Barth (by way of Jeff McSwain, who was at the center of the Young Life controversy).  In this reading, Christ is the key – Christ renders unimportant the contradictions in the Bible; Christ makes the archaic prohibitions in the Bible inapplicable (e.g., women should wear head coverings and stay silent in church); Christ and his salvific acts supersede all arguments about ancillary biblical issues and texts.

So far, so good.

But here’s the paragraph from the introduction where this all comes undone for me, and herein lies the reason that this post is so difficult to write:

I should also say up front, for the purposes of full disclosure, that, since completing the writing of this book, I have joined the Catholic Church. My reasons for becoming Catholic – an evangelical Catholic, I might add – were many, and only partly related to the issues raised here.  This fact of my autobiography, however, takes nothing away from the importance and legitimacy of this book’s argument for American evangelicalism – a movement about which I still care, in certain ways admire, and want to see realizing its best potential.  Toward that end, for evangelical Protestants who intend to remain evangelical, the argument of this book stands strong and deserves to be engaged and answered.  The constructive suggestions with which I conclude this book hold true for evangelical Protestants, and, to be clear, no reader needs to become Catholic in order to embrace any or all of them.

He adds in an endnote,

Of course the Catholic Church itself professes a very high view of scripture and must reckon with the same interpretive challenges outlined in the following chapters, although it arguably brings to that task a fuller toolbox of resources.

Now, I must make clear that I am not personally critical of Smith’s conversion to Catholicism.  I, of course, respect his right to believe and practice whatever religion he’d like, and I don’t know the circumstances of his conversion.  Neither, I hope, am I letting my own admitted antipathy toward Catholicism overshadow Smith’s contribution.

However, I must disagree with him.  This fact of his autobiography does undermine this book’s argument.

Here’s why: Smith argues that the dominant hermeneutic in evangelicalism – which he calls “biblicism” – is ultimately untenable because it is unreasonable.  Biblicism leads to all sorts of hermeneutical and theological gymnastics, which Smith catalogues at length in the book.  These gymnastics lead evangelicals to hold theological, moral, and even political positions that are downright silly, and can clearly be shown with little effort to be out of step with the biblical narrative. Evangelicals’ lack of care for the welfare of the poor, their support of the death penalty, and their inherent racism – all of which have been established by research in Smith’s earlier books – are just three examples.

However, Smith has now submitted himself to the Catholic Church, surely the most authoritarian and dogmatic hermeneutical community in all of Christendom.  In other words, he has exchanged one community of irrationality for another.

To wit:

1. As a Catholic, Smith will have no say in the church’s position in any of the church’s theological positions.  He won’t get a vote in exegetical disputes on the very texts that he writes about in this book.
2. I hope the fact is not lost on Smith that, as a layperson, he was allowed and even encouraged to write book very critical of the evangelical church by an evangelical publishing house.  In the Catholic Church, non-clergy members are both formally and culturally not encouraged to question the Church, particularly in print.
3. Even preeminent theologians in the Catholic Church are kept from the very kind of critical engagement with the church that Smith engages in this book – and, I might add, that Smith holds dear in the tradition of liberal democracy.  I wonder, for example, what Smith would say about the magisterium’s treatment of Hans Küng – arguably the best Catholic theologian of the 20^th century, Küng was silenced by the church for writing a book that questioned papal infallibility.
4. The Catholic Church has a dismal record of encouraging laypersons to study and engage the text of scripture, another practice that Smith seems to hold dear.
5. The Catholic Church has a long history of tortured readings of the Bible, from the Crusades to the selling of indulgences.
6. That tortured hermeneutic continues today.  The Catholic Church readily uses biblical justifications for the veneration of Mary, a hierarchical ecclesiology, a claim that it is the “one, true church,” and an all-male celibate priesthood.  And this lattermost interpretation, it can be argued, has led to the rampant sexual deviance and pedophilia that, unbelievably, continues to be uncovered on a weekly basis.

And I could go on.

I’ve argued before that all religious systems are, at some level, irrational, and I’ve argued that some are more more irrational than others.  I don’t like it, but it’s true.  By submitting yourself to a religious system, you necessarily embrace a certain amount of irrationality.  So be it.

However, one can choose the hermeneutical community to which one submits oneself.  I have, and Christian Smith has.

But Smith’s critique of evangelicalism is that evangelicals read the Bible irrationally.  I agree.  But I submit that Smith has now joined a hermeneutical community that is just as irrational, but it’s one in which his voice won’t be valued.

Tom Arthur, pastor of a small UMC church, is “haunted” by the foreclosure of the Crystal Cathedral. They weren’t diversified enough, he posits, and he wonders how many mega-churches are. He also wonders how his church compares to Mars Hill:

But what if I thought about comparing the West Michigan Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church to Willow Creek? Or how about just the Lansing District of the West Michigan Annual Conference? Suddenly the perspective changes. Now we’re talking about a church with fifty-two campuses in the greater Lansing area and some seriously well-trained campus pastors, and while the conference and district are in decline and losing members and attendance every year, it’s highly unlikely that they will have such a dramatic disappearing act as a megachurch like the Crystal Cathedral. We’re way too diversified for that.

via Duke Divinity Call & Response Blog | Faith & Leadership | Tom Arthur: Ego cathedral.

Ushers stand as the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles conducts the first service after St Paul's reopens its doors. Photograph: Paul Hackett/Reuters

If you’ve been following the ups and downs of Occupy London at St. Paul’s Cathedral, including the sad resignation of Giles Fraser as canon chancellor, this is a somewhat happy turn of events:

St Paul’s Cathedral reopened at midday in time for its normal daily lunchtime eucharist service, but this time with a congregation swelled by tourists, the curious and serried ranks of the media to number several hundred.

No special security measures were apparent, nor any obvious signs of health and safety concerns. Asked whether this was a normal-sized congregation for the service, staff giggled and shook their heads. The same question to the embattled dean, the Rt Rev Graeme Knowles, produced the reply that all was perfectly normal and they often had congregations this size.

via St Paul’s congregation swells to hundreds for first lunchtime service | UK news | guardian.co.uk.

Alternate headline: “Church of England Edges Closer to 20th Century“:

The Church of England cleared another legislative hurdle to appointing women bishops, but traditionalist opponents warned on Monday the move was not a foregone conclusion. Some Anglican provinces already have women bishops, including Australia, the United States and Canada, but the ordination of women and homosexuals as bishops as well as same-sex marriages remain the most divisive issues facing the Anglican Communion, which has 77 million members worldwide. [via Church of England edges nearer to allowing women bishops | FaithWorld]

Meanwhile, Italian police detained a group of Catholics who were attempting to deliver a petition in favor of women clergy to the Vatican:

A group of Roman Catholic activists who think women should be ordained priests tried to deliver a petition to the Vatican on Monday but were blocked from entering St Peter’s Square and some were detailed by police. Witnesses said plainclothes Italian police stopped the group of about 15 demonstrators, including several women dressed in priest’s robes, and confiscated a banner reading “God is calling women to be priests.” [READ THE REST]

I spent some time last week with a group of mainline clergy.  They were truly great people who really wanted to change their churches.  I was speaking about preaching, and they wanted their preaching to be more relevant and contemporary.  But, they reported to me, they are handcuffed.  Their aging congregations simply will not abide change of any kind.

These clergy were in a predicament: their congregations are so small that to lose any of the old-timers virtually ensures closing the doors to the church, but without dramatic changes, the congregations are bound to continue their decline.  The question is, can these clergy both satisfy the elderly members and also reach out to new, younger members?

The answer seems to be no.

Hartford Seminary, an authoritative voice regarding trends in the American Church, has released a study about what happened in the forst decade of the millennium.  The news all around is not good, and it’s particularly bad for the mainline church.  In fact, the report, “A Decade of Change in American Congregations, 2000-2010” (PDF), suggests that the phrase to describe these congregations should be changed to oldline Christianity.

As seen in the above graphs, innovation in worship directly correlates to congregational health and vitality.

White churches in general, and oldline churches particularly are doing a horrible job at keep young adults interested in faith:

As a result both the spiritual and financial vigor of American congregations are rapidly declining:

The summary of the research, below, shows a decade of decline in the church, with some notable exceptions: there are more megachurches, and immigrant/ethnic congregations are growing.  But this is not enough to contravene the overall trend of decline.

Conducted in 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2010, the FACT series shows that the decade brought:

• A continued increase in innovative, adaptive worship
• A surprisingly rapid adoption of electronic technologies
• A dramatic increase in racial/ethnic congregations, many for immigrant groups
• A general increase in the breadth of both member-oriented  and mission-oriented programs

It also gave witness to:

• An increase in connection across faith traditions
• A twist in the historical pattern of religious involvement in support of the electoral process

But the decade also saw:

• A steep drop in financial healthContinuing high levels of conflict
• Aging memberships

The net, overall result:

• Fewer persons in the pews
• Decreasing spiritual vitality

Surely, this will cause more hand-wringing in the mainline church.  But what what I find frustrating is that, as I travel and speak to mainline groups, they are unwilling and/or incapable of making the changes that the emerging church movement has pioneered, even in the face of these dire statistics.

The emerging church movement has shown that mega-church evangelicalism is not the only way to congregational vitality: a congregation does not need to sacrifice progressive, open theology for growth and health.

But I don’t know that the mainline church will ever get this message, because the commitment to their bureaucracies and liturgies is as strong as evangelicals’ commitment to their doctrine.

Whether you’re mainline, emergent, or evangelical, what do you think: Can mainline Protestant congregations in America make the necessary shifts to survive, and possibly even thrive, into another generation?

If you’re preaching tomorrow, you might be looking for a little inspiration.  Well, let me recommend The Hardest Question, a lectionary-based website that I curate, along with my friends Russell Rathbun and David Schoenknecht.  This week’s posts are by Russell, on the week’s lectionary texts in the Gospel and the Psalm.  Plus, as always, Russell and I have video musings on the Gospel text: