A Thread on Church Decline (Sort Of)
I'm a little late to the party, but in the last week, there has been a robust discussion of the numbers published by the Episcopal Church regarding membership, church attendance, etc. Like many valuable conversations, it was kicked off by Ben Crosby, who pointed out that these numbers are, um, not good. This lead to many conversations regarding the causes of, and solutions to, the reality of numeric decline.
I cannot begin to summarize all of these conversations, and there is no single answer or solution. Instead, I'd like to take a small thread of the bigger tapestry and hopefully provide a contribution. And I would like to start here:
Since we are talking about numbers, let's talk about the number 57. As in 57%, the proportion of white Mainliners voted who for Trump in 2016. I could not find a more detailed break-down of the explicitly Episcopalian vote in 2016, but I don't see any particular reason why Episcopalians are meaningfully different from members of the ECLA or the PCUSA. Maybe it is 50%, maybe it is 48%--the point is that probably around half of Episcopalians went into the ballot box and pulled the lever for Trump.
The numbers of Evangelicals and white Catholics voting for Trump (77% and 64%, respectively) has gotten all of the press. But there are very clear, straight-forward explanations for those numbers. For Evangelicals, all of the major organizations of the Evangelical world have been working hand-in-glove with the GOP for a generation. For white Catholics, you have the messaging deadlock between the (mostly progressive) social justice positions of the Roman Catholic Church and abortion uber alles. Whatever you think of those positions, there were strong tailwinds pushing Evangelicals and Catholics (especially white Catholics) toward voting for Trump and the GOP. Those numbers make sense.
The 57% Mainline number is harder to make sense of, because there simply aren't those sorts of tailwinds in those bodies. If you look at the policy positions of Mainline churches, including the Episcopal Church, they are at least as progressive as the Catholic ones, and without any contravening push on abortion, gay marriage, etc. Yes, yes, social justice considerations are not reducible to "Trump bad," but it's not like the Episcopal Church has been hiding the ball regarding what it collectively thinks about Trump (see also, e.g., here, and here). These Mainline churches like the Episcopal Church are supposed to be "super liberal," especially if you ask their critics. And yet this "liberalism" translates into only modest differences in voting patterns as compared to Evangelicals/white Catholics.
So, what is going on here? If you believe that one's voting should be derived from, and a product of, your religious faith (and, I don't think you would get any push-back from the leadership of the Episcopal Church on this point), then there is a breakdown in discipleship in the Episcopal Church. Folks are not being formed right in the faith. That's a problem.
But, if you look at the official documents coming out of the Episcopal Church, you notice something interesting. Consider the 2018 General Convention of the Episcopal Church. During that Convention, the delegates considered and approved resolutions titled: (1) "Halt the Intensification and Implementation of Immigration Policies and Practices that are Harmful to Migrant Women, Parents and Children"; (2) "Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue"; (3) "Supporting Transgender Access"; (4) "Repair America's Safety Net"; (5) "Support of One Person, One Vote"; (6) "Addressing the issue of Voter Suppression"; (7) "Addressing Mass Incarceration"; and (8) "Condemning Prolonged Solitary Confinement as a Form of Torture," among others.
In each case, the thrust of the resolution is that the Episcopal Church calls upon the government (generally the federal government) to do such and such thing. What they don't do, and what you would think on first blush they should do, is direct the members of the Episcopal Church to do anything. More specifically, they don't say, for example, "the federal government is not acting decisively enough to curtail gun violence, and so you should vote the current leadership out of office." After all, members of the Episcopal Church (or at least most of them) are voters, and voters collectively have the power to change governmental policies by changing the people who make up the government. The most direct way for the Episcopal Church to change "realities on the ground" in the U.S. and the world is via leveraging its membership. I will confess that I have not read every resolution that was passed by General Convention in 2018, but I don't see anything that calls upon members of the Episcopal Church to take political action.
"But Mike," I hear you say, "if I talk about politics and who my parishioners should vote for, I will lose people." And, I think that's true. For better or for worse, we have a culture in this country that political opinions are viewed as personal and sacrosanct, and so people will balk if you are perceived as strong-arming them about politics. More specifically, people do not take well to being told that their politics suck and need to be changed by someone in some position of authority--one notices that lectures about the right kind of politics tend not to bother us when we agree about what the right kind of politics are. If the Episcopal Church were to, right now, put on a full court press on the idea that its members may not vote for Trump in 2020, there will be a strong backlash.
And, yet, how come the Evangelicals and (to a lesser extent) the Catholics manage to get their folks to stick with what they believe to be the right politics? By not framing the issue as being about politics, but about discipleship. Members of those bodies strongly tend toward certain political positions because they had absorbed a theological and philosophical ethos and world-view, one that pushes them in certain directions. That ethos and world-view was conceived of and presented in explicitly and unambiguously religious terms. If you form people in a set of values and a strong, coherent world-view, you never have to tell anyone who to vote for, because you can be confident that they will come to the "right" decision on their own. And, in so doing, you don't run afoul of the cultural block against telling people who to vote for.
The dichotomy between the people who care about "doctrine" and the people who care about "social justice" or "social change" is a false choice, not simply because social justice considerations are a part of doctrine, but because building a robust, doctrinally-coherent, compelling church is the most effective way to bring into existence a body of believers who will work to make social justice a reality in society. Ditching or minimizing doctrine makes your political messages overtly political, and thus less effective and less likely to be listened to seriously. If I present my institution as being about a set of political stances, and you don't agree with those stances, then you have no reason to be a part of or continue in this institution. But if my institution is about a message about the nature of God, and a lifestyle to live that stems from that message, (1) you are more likely, if you have bought in to the message and the lifestyle, to listen to I have to say about politics; and/or (2) even if you never come around on the political issues, you are more likely to stick around notwithstanding what you think are "bad politics."
As to the second one, if you don't believe me, just go talk to the legions of liberal Roman Catholics who put up with an enormous amount of what they perceive as politically toxic crap from Holy Mother Church because they find spiritual fulfillment in the sacraments and the life of the church. You can criticize them for this, and I have, but it speaks to a basic reality that it is extremely difficult to alienate people with politics when you have a strong discipleship structure that nourishes and fulfills those people. The same would be true of the Episcopal Church, if we would commit to a focus and framing of discipleship, grounded in our core theological commitments and principles. If we did that, then we might see that 57% number change.
Plus, Christendom is dead, y'all. What is so weird about reading those resolutions from General Convention is that they seem to tacitly assume that the Episcopal Church qua the Episcopal Church can influence public policy with these sorts of statements, in the manner of Pope Gregory VII making the Holy Roman Emperor walk through the snow. Presented that way, that's obviously folly. The Trump Administration clearly does not give a fig what the Episcopal Church thinks about its policies (or any other body, for that matter). So it's not just that talking to and working with one's own members is more effective in changing the political climate than these sorts of pronouncements, it's the only approach that even could be effective. We're wasting our time with these sorts of resolutions, and we are particularly wasting our time if we think they are going to do anything.
So, has the Episcopal Church lost members because of its political stances? Likely yes. Is the solution to change or soft-peddle those stances? Absolutely not--they are, at the end of the day, correct on the merits. Instead, the solution is to focus on the sacraments, on having strong congregations, on education--on building a strong church of discipleship as the platform to present those positions, not as one political position among many, but as a product of being a follower of Jesus. Not only would it improve what I believe is the most critical dimension of what church is for, but it would also be more effective in promoting and propagating the causes for which many are deeply committed. If you don't believe me on the merits with regard to doctrine, maybe consider it on pragmatic grounds?
I cannot begin to summarize all of these conversations, and there is no single answer or solution. Instead, I'd like to take a small thread of the bigger tapestry and hopefully provide a contribution. And I would like to start here:
I agree with this completely. But often in Episcopal Church conversations, people want to set up a dichotomy between the people who care about "doctrine" (expressed in a comprehensive way by Mother Joyce) and the people who care about "social justice" or "social change" or however you want to frame it. That would be a relevant conversation, perhaps, if the Episcopal Church, or the folks who want to focus mostly or exclusively on social justice concerns, were being really effective in advancing those concerns.If we don’t act like the theological, ethical, and contemplative claims of Christianity are of *utmost* importance and ought to shape every part of people’s lives, we won’t retain kids and we won’t inspire their families. How much do we do or not do out of fear of being Baptists?— K.D. Joyce (@MtrKDJoyce) September 2, 2019
Since we are talking about numbers, let's talk about the number 57. As in 57%, the proportion of white Mainliners voted who for Trump in 2016. I could not find a more detailed break-down of the explicitly Episcopalian vote in 2016, but I don't see any particular reason why Episcopalians are meaningfully different from members of the ECLA or the PCUSA. Maybe it is 50%, maybe it is 48%--the point is that probably around half of Episcopalians went into the ballot box and pulled the lever for Trump.
The numbers of Evangelicals and white Catholics voting for Trump (77% and 64%, respectively) has gotten all of the press. But there are very clear, straight-forward explanations for those numbers. For Evangelicals, all of the major organizations of the Evangelical world have been working hand-in-glove with the GOP for a generation. For white Catholics, you have the messaging deadlock between the (mostly progressive) social justice positions of the Roman Catholic Church and abortion uber alles. Whatever you think of those positions, there were strong tailwinds pushing Evangelicals and Catholics (especially white Catholics) toward voting for Trump and the GOP. Those numbers make sense.
The 57% Mainline number is harder to make sense of, because there simply aren't those sorts of tailwinds in those bodies. If you look at the policy positions of Mainline churches, including the Episcopal Church, they are at least as progressive as the Catholic ones, and without any contravening push on abortion, gay marriage, etc. Yes, yes, social justice considerations are not reducible to "Trump bad," but it's not like the Episcopal Church has been hiding the ball regarding what it collectively thinks about Trump (see also, e.g., here, and here). These Mainline churches like the Episcopal Church are supposed to be "super liberal," especially if you ask their critics. And yet this "liberalism" translates into only modest differences in voting patterns as compared to Evangelicals/white Catholics.
So, what is going on here? If you believe that one's voting should be derived from, and a product of, your religious faith (and, I don't think you would get any push-back from the leadership of the Episcopal Church on this point), then there is a breakdown in discipleship in the Episcopal Church. Folks are not being formed right in the faith. That's a problem.
But, if you look at the official documents coming out of the Episcopal Church, you notice something interesting. Consider the 2018 General Convention of the Episcopal Church. During that Convention, the delegates considered and approved resolutions titled: (1) "Halt the Intensification and Implementation of Immigration Policies and Practices that are Harmful to Migrant Women, Parents and Children"; (2) "Gun Violence as a Public Health Issue"; (3) "Supporting Transgender Access"; (4) "Repair America's Safety Net"; (5) "Support of One Person, One Vote"; (6) "Addressing the issue of Voter Suppression"; (7) "Addressing Mass Incarceration"; and (8) "Condemning Prolonged Solitary Confinement as a Form of Torture," among others.
In each case, the thrust of the resolution is that the Episcopal Church calls upon the government (generally the federal government) to do such and such thing. What they don't do, and what you would think on first blush they should do, is direct the members of the Episcopal Church to do anything. More specifically, they don't say, for example, "the federal government is not acting decisively enough to curtail gun violence, and so you should vote the current leadership out of office." After all, members of the Episcopal Church (or at least most of them) are voters, and voters collectively have the power to change governmental policies by changing the people who make up the government. The most direct way for the Episcopal Church to change "realities on the ground" in the U.S. and the world is via leveraging its membership. I will confess that I have not read every resolution that was passed by General Convention in 2018, but I don't see anything that calls upon members of the Episcopal Church to take political action.
"But Mike," I hear you say, "if I talk about politics and who my parishioners should vote for, I will lose people." And, I think that's true. For better or for worse, we have a culture in this country that political opinions are viewed as personal and sacrosanct, and so people will balk if you are perceived as strong-arming them about politics. More specifically, people do not take well to being told that their politics suck and need to be changed by someone in some position of authority--one notices that lectures about the right kind of politics tend not to bother us when we agree about what the right kind of politics are. If the Episcopal Church were to, right now, put on a full court press on the idea that its members may not vote for Trump in 2020, there will be a strong backlash.
And, yet, how come the Evangelicals and (to a lesser extent) the Catholics manage to get their folks to stick with what they believe to be the right politics? By not framing the issue as being about politics, but about discipleship. Members of those bodies strongly tend toward certain political positions because they had absorbed a theological and philosophical ethos and world-view, one that pushes them in certain directions. That ethos and world-view was conceived of and presented in explicitly and unambiguously religious terms. If you form people in a set of values and a strong, coherent world-view, you never have to tell anyone who to vote for, because you can be confident that they will come to the "right" decision on their own. And, in so doing, you don't run afoul of the cultural block against telling people who to vote for.
The dichotomy between the people who care about "doctrine" and the people who care about "social justice" or "social change" is a false choice, not simply because social justice considerations are a part of doctrine, but because building a robust, doctrinally-coherent, compelling church is the most effective way to bring into existence a body of believers who will work to make social justice a reality in society. Ditching or minimizing doctrine makes your political messages overtly political, and thus less effective and less likely to be listened to seriously. If I present my institution as being about a set of political stances, and you don't agree with those stances, then you have no reason to be a part of or continue in this institution. But if my institution is about a message about the nature of God, and a lifestyle to live that stems from that message, (1) you are more likely, if you have bought in to the message and the lifestyle, to listen to I have to say about politics; and/or (2) even if you never come around on the political issues, you are more likely to stick around notwithstanding what you think are "bad politics."
As to the second one, if you don't believe me, just go talk to the legions of liberal Roman Catholics who put up with an enormous amount of what they perceive as politically toxic crap from Holy Mother Church because they find spiritual fulfillment in the sacraments and the life of the church. You can criticize them for this, and I have, but it speaks to a basic reality that it is extremely difficult to alienate people with politics when you have a strong discipleship structure that nourishes and fulfills those people. The same would be true of the Episcopal Church, if we would commit to a focus and framing of discipleship, grounded in our core theological commitments and principles. If we did that, then we might see that 57% number change.
Plus, Christendom is dead, y'all. What is so weird about reading those resolutions from General Convention is that they seem to tacitly assume that the Episcopal Church qua the Episcopal Church can influence public policy with these sorts of statements, in the manner of Pope Gregory VII making the Holy Roman Emperor walk through the snow. Presented that way, that's obviously folly. The Trump Administration clearly does not give a fig what the Episcopal Church thinks about its policies (or any other body, for that matter). So it's not just that talking to and working with one's own members is more effective in changing the political climate than these sorts of pronouncements, it's the only approach that even could be effective. We're wasting our time with these sorts of resolutions, and we are particularly wasting our time if we think they are going to do anything.
So, has the Episcopal Church lost members because of its political stances? Likely yes. Is the solution to change or soft-peddle those stances? Absolutely not--they are, at the end of the day, correct on the merits. Instead, the solution is to focus on the sacraments, on having strong congregations, on education--on building a strong church of discipleship as the platform to present those positions, not as one political position among many, but as a product of being a follower of Jesus. Not only would it improve what I believe is the most critical dimension of what church is for, but it would also be more effective in promoting and propagating the causes for which many are deeply committed. If you don't believe me on the merits with regard to doctrine, maybe consider it on pragmatic grounds?
Comments