Mainline Decline and the “So What” Question

I’ve cited Walter Russell Mead’s critical perspective on the Episcopal Church (and mainline churches more generally) in earlier postings. In a recent essay, Mead addresses the complex question, “Where Did the
Mainline Go Wrong?” “As a whole,” Mead writes, “the mainline churches are now making the transition from slow decline to progressive collapse.”

It’s typically easier to offer descriptive and pejorative criticism than it is to offer constructive proposals for what to do about a  problem. And the problem of mainline meltdown is certainly no  different. “There is no one single solution to the problems of the  mainline church,” Mead observes, “or if there is, it has not been  revealed to me.” Nonetheless, Mead thinks that our tendency to  undervalue the principle of sustainability is one of the major reasons  for decline. Sustainability includes not merely sound institutional  assumptions, a solid economic base, and a well-planned strategic  direction. It also includes answering the “So what?” question in a way  that inspires loyalty and (oftentimes counter-cultural) commitment to  the path of discipleship. Mead is worth quoting at length about this:

The mainline churches do not seem to have thought through some of the
basic conditions that allow religious organizations to thrive.
Religion will not long prosper as a luxury good; it is not primarily a
way that comfortable people who are basically happy with their lives
can make their lives even richer and more rewarding. A sustainable
religion must convince people that it is necessary to life, health and
spiritual coherence. A church cannot be one club among many or one
leisure activity among many; it must present itself as a bedrock
necessity. Not all of its members will take the church at this
estimate, but unless a critical mass of its members and leaders feel
this way, a denomination (or a congregation) will be entirely
dependent on outside cultural and economic forces for its health and
even in the long run its survival. A successful church is not one
whose pastors and other leaders think a life in church is one calling
among many; a critical mass must deeply believe that this vocation is
so critical that they would do it, if need be, for nothing  ¢â‚¬” that they
would do it if actively persecuted and flogged from town to town. …
The great question for fundamentalist and evangelical religion is the
relationship of revelation to modern science. The great question for
modernist and mainline religion is the ‘so what’ question. If members
are not sinners being saved from the flames of Hell, if Christianity
is not the one path of salvation offered by a merciful God to a
perishing world, if a relationship with God is not the only means to
surmount the challenges of each day much less to meet the great tests
of life  ¢â‚¬” why go to church? Why pledge? Why have the kids go to Sunday
school rather than soccer practice?

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  ¢â‚¬” but that you will do everything in your power to
encourage your friends and neighbors 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.

The mainline churches don ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to give the same answers to these
questions that Billy Sunday gave. But they must answer them; at the
moment, too often, they don ¢â‚¬â„¢t even try. I do not say that it ¢â‚¬â„¢s a
simple thing to answer these questions under contemporary conditions  ¢â‚¬”
but I do say that the failure to keep this in focus as the most
essential thing that a church must do is a key to the spiritual
weakness and, therefore, the broader crisis of the mainline church.

Read it all.

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2010/04/18/faith-matters-where-did-the-mainline-go-wrong/

I think Mead has rightly diagnosed a central problem in this passage.
Add to it the politicization of the Church and the ways in which we
increasingly think of the Church as an extension of our lifestyle
enclaves, special interest groups, and political party affiliations
and the problems get that much worse.

http://creedalchristian.blogspot.com/