The State of the Church in 2022 Blog 4

 A non-authorized and persona reflection on the health of our churches

 In this fourth and last in this series, I want to write about TEC and its diversity and inclusiveness especially as reflected in our congregations. I hope that I can say it in a way that helps my readers understand how our desire for inclusiveness has hindered our ability to become more diverse.

Let me start by stating some basic points:

No denomination or group can reach the growing diversity and complexity of our society. So even if we say, “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You,” it is unrealistic for us to expect that everyone will feel welcome among us.

For example, the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, still the standard for most congregations, is written on a 15^th grade reading level. This clearly reflects a church that is highly educated. The New York Times is written on a 6^th grade reading level! Historically, TEC has reached college educated Anglophiles, those who love English culture including language and literature. We have also reached those who value the arts and classical music. This is called “high European culture.”

Sometimes, this identity makes us uncomfortable acknowledging our cultural prejudices. We are also often embarrassed that TEC remains almost 85% white despite years of efforts at diversity. The most diverse thing we have done in membership is planting new congregations especially among Hispanics.

We have made strides in the inclusiveness of our leadership. The greatest gains in this are gender related. First, since the 70s, the equality of women movement has seen women enter every level of leadership. Today the number of women in seminaries outnumbers men. The second area related to gender is the full inclusion of what once was identified as gay and lesbian people and now includes a growing number of other gender identities.

Sadly, despite much effort, since the middle of the last century, TEC has lost a significant number of strong African American congregations. This is also true of blue-collar congregations. I often say that I am so old that I can remember when we let members of labor unions join TEC.

All these dynamics must be seen also from the great loss of membership that TEC, like many so-called mainline denominations, has experienced. When I went to seminary in 1968, we had 3.6 million members which represented a much larger percentage of the U.S. population than now. In the last two decades, we have had an accelerated lost of half  of the numbers reported in 2000. What have these changes done to our diversity? The percentages remain about the same for the past 30 years.

These factors leave us with several important questions. For example, why is it that despite much enthusiastic talk from our leaders about our potential to now reach a wider circle of our pluralistic society, our continued decline challenges the very future of our existence?  

Further, why is it that in a time when the worldwide Anglican Communion is growing at an astounding rate, especially in Africa and Asia, TEC still has made little gains in the diversity of our membership even with people from these countries with strong and growing Anglican memberships who migrate to the U.S.?

And what about generational diversity? Why is it that despite some valent efforts of some bishops to reach leaders from younger generations, the average age of seminarians continues to move higher, now over 45?

I feel that our leaders “good intentions” to be more inclusive mask our long-standing inability to become more diverse.  Perhaps part of this is our post World War II attitude of “build it and they will come” with an emphasis primarily on land and buildings.  Bishop Payne used to point out that evangelism is the most diverse ministry that the Episcopal Church could do.  Perhaps our focus on present members and a lack of desire to reach people who are different from our Episcopal profile has created a culture of decline that we now accept as normative.

In evangelism training, we often look at those in our community that we are more likely to reach. This is sometimes called “the low hanging fruit.” In each community this may vary, but for the Episcopal Church in the United States as a whole, there is a universal answer. And that answer illustrates how our desire to be inclusive often trumps our ability to grow in diversity.

In 2000, I wrote an article for The Living Church that addressed the potential for TEC in Hispanic ministry. Since we were working on a plan to double our size, I pointed out that four proven missional strategies that if aimed at Hispanic people would allow us to double the size of TEC in 20 years.  I also pointed out several reasons why Hispanics are very receptive to TEC. Why would a Church so committed to diversity ignore this potential?

The answer came from a member of the Executive Council. He wrote me to say I was right about the potential for Hispanic ministry but that if we did this, it would be wrong. He said that once the number of Hispanic members began to equal everyone else, we would “cease to be an inclusive Church.”  I found this attitude among several of our Bishops and many of our national leaders.

It took me several years to grasp what was meant. It meant that those who had benefited from the inclusiveness of our Church feared a loss of power if we expanded our diversity. The highly educated and inclusive minded leaders might no longer be in control.  I have since realized that if you listen to the language of our leaders, you will discover that all the language about inclusiveness has become code language to protect the status quo of our current membership profile. 

What is the State of the Church in 2022? It is stuck in decline while continuing efforts at inclusiveness continue to prevent any real change toward diversity. This is true even if that diversity represents exactly the kind of people about whom Jesus seemed the most concerned, the poor, the needy, the oppressed, and the foreigner among us.   

 

The State of the Church 2022: Blog 3

 An unauthorized and personal reflection

In my first blog of this series, I wrote about the crisis of preparing ordained leaders for the present and future Church. In my second blog I wrote about our failure in evangelism. In this blog, I look at the issue of formation.

I have seen several examples of clergy and congregations that do an outstanding work in the deepening formation of their members. This issue is dear to my heart because I believe that it is the continual work of the church to grow our members into closer disciples of our Lord. For example, when I have taught on preaching, I share that our time in the pulpit is an opportunity for spiritual direction for our members. Remember C.S. Lewis’ refrain in heaven, “higher up and deeper in.” Part of my work as a priest is to motivate people to have longing for and seek this spiritual progression.

The congregations that do this well have given thought and planning on how to do formation. Once having done this, they think through the steps. Those who benefit from spiritual direction know that this is precisely what the director does for individuals. Congregations that do formation well are following the same model.

I have written other blogs about the research on congregations that point out that the spiritual growth of members has almost no correlation to the planned activities of a church. According to this research, members mostly grow because they just happen to be at the right place at the right time. Our parishioners might joke that they were in the wrong place at the right time, but whether by chance or intention, the consequence is that they were challenged to take a step further in to the Christian life. The classical image is pilgrimage.

I learned a great lesson from church planting about all this.  Church planters find when they launch the new congregation, they face a dilemma in our core value of using the lectionary. Given the large percentage of a new church who are not only non-Episcopalians but also non-Christian, the lectionary provides little continuity in the early formation of Christians.  Church planters taught me that they often had to plan the first months of services in a way for them to present the basics of the Christian faith via the lessons, gospels, and sermons.

I would acknowledge that a long tenured Episcopalian should not need this, and the seasons and lectionary are generally an enriching experience, but I would also mention that I have met life-long Episcopalians with large gaps in their formation, in understanding Christ and their call to believe and follow him.  My point is that assuming that folks can sit in our pews for years and “get it” is quite an assumption. As a teacher of mine once said, “it’s like putting people in a chicken coop and expecting them to eventually lay eggs.”

In my consultation work with churches and in teaching congregational development to leaders, I often speak to the need for formation. I point out that this needs to be intentional and aimed at spiritual growth. Further, I point out the two paths that I think are necessary to a healthy congregation. The first is a clear tract to membership which means active participation in the congregation’s worship, ministries, and stewardship. 

The second path is that of discipleship.  I ask leadership to image a person or family that comes to their church as spiritual seekers, not already formed Christians. Then I ask them to map out events, education, and experiences that would lead them in becoming intentional followers of Jesus Christ. Amazingly, once given the task, many of our leaders are up for the work. But how many congregations in TEC do this?  How many of our clergy and lay leaders assume that attending Church 1, 2, 3, or 4 Sundays a month will make that happen? My answer is TOO MANY.

This is not to negate the value of baptismal or confirmation instruction. Many of our churches put good effort into this. Unfortunately, many times these are aimed at becoming an Episcopalian. Once having completed this instruction followed by baptism or conformation, new people are treated as if they have arrived at the destination.

Thus, when I look at the State of the Church, I see a major issue. Too few congregations have thought through a path of membership and many fewer have thought through a path of discipleship.

Because I am rooted in the catholic (small c) tradition of TEC, I have a strong desire to make formation and spiritual direction part of the congregations I have served. At the Cathedral in Dallas, we created a core curriculum and a Cathedral Way of Life and constantly invited both new members and long-time members to take these on. Were we perfect at this? Of course not, but we were intentional about it. When I retired from the Cathedral over half our members had signed on to following the Cathedral Way, a traditional Christian path for deepening the spiritual life of our people. It was the singularly most significant congregational dynamic that I had ever been a part of in years of ministry.

When it comes to formation, the State of our Church is that despite some wonderful examples, most of our congregations are not doing this work. 

The State of the Church 2022 Blog 2

In my first blog on the State of the Church: A personal Reflection, I talked about the crisis in preparing ordained leaders for the challenge of revitalizing congregations. In this one, I want to write about the crisis in evangelism and leading other to faith in Christ what we might call the front door of our community. Let me begin by commending the ongoing and great work of the Invite, Welcome, Connect Ministry in equipping congregations in building up our congregations. This is great hands-on information for leaders who care about reaching and greeting those outside the Church.

Now let’s face the challenge and the problem. Officially according to the Church, evangelism is to present Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit so that others are led to believe in him as savior and follow him as Lord within the fellowship of his Church. We should be honest that today this definition is largely ignored. As progressives have taken more control over our community, the definition of evangelism is now rooted in this. We are out to make the world a more just and inclusive society, the reign of God, and we invite anyone who would like to help us in this task to join us. We also, according to the evangelism network’s publications, are committed to saving the environment and planting gardens to assist in providing food to those in need. This too falls within the category of making the world a better place. After all, what better news can we share than God cares for those in need?

Before you think that this is a negative set of statements on my part, let me clarify that I identify with a great deal of the Church’s efforts to be inclusive of all people and to be advocates of justice and protectors of the environment. These are all worthy activities and works of the Church. However, in our attitude toward these works rests the problem we now have with evangelism.

First, we are not doing evangelism, we are doing recruitment of like-minded people. As one priest said publicly, “we will not accept anyone in our church who does not accept all our LGBTQ… people.” I was not surprised to hear this said in a large public forum, but I was troubled that not one of those who heard this objected.  It would do me no good in Episcopal Circles to warn of the attitude of recruiting likeminded people because this has become so much the norm that no Episcopalian would see anything wrong with this. Let me point out that a community made up of like-minded people that will not let in anyone who does not agree with them is a better definition of a cult than a church. 

Second, the progressive side of our community has made Christianity principally about what is classically called “works.” Our Episcopalian leaders still remember that salvation, if you care about it, is a grace and gift of God, by now they often say, “modeled for us by Jesus.” As one recent progressive leader wrote, "It is not necessary for people to believe in Jesus as God or the son of God or worship him. We just need to follow his example. To an untrained theological mind, this sounds good but it is not good.

Episcopalians are mindful of the classical formula that we are saved by Grace and not by our works. But now we have a revisionist view of what salvation means. It is that God accepts us just the way we are because like most college educated Christians, we have come to believe therapeutic self-acceptance and salvation by grace are the same thing. Perhaps we should add the song “Learning to Love yourself is the greatest love of all” to a new hymnal. Yes, there is a therapeutic truth that lies in self-acceptance. In classical theology we learn to hate sin and not the sinner even if the sinner is us. And we are taught that the sinful must stand before judgement because we are not who God created us to be or intends for us to be in Christ. Toxic self-hatred is not repentance, it is an illness and a debilitating dysfunction in need of healing, but that is not salvation.

What I am highlighting is the abysmal state of theological understanding that deconstructionism and revisionist progressive theology have brought about in a community where having correct intentions is the dominant theme. Fortunately, this isn’t the only story of the Church. There are many especially younger clergy who understand where all this leads us. But for now, most progressives keep repeating these themes.

As most of my readers know, I have been and continue to be a strong advocate for evangelism. This largely falls on deaf ears among my fellow Episcopal clergy at this time, but I can assure you not the laity. I continue to declare that evangelism “proclaiming the God News of Salvation in Jesus Christ, the forgiveness of sin, the reconciliation with God and others, and the new life lived in the power of the Holy Spirit” is at the heart of our calling, just that it is out of step with the times. Out of step at least with the Spirit of the times.

If I could best provide a jolt to this mindset, what could I say? Why is it, I ask, that at almost every public event of loss or tragedy voices are raised to sing “amazing grace how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me? I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see” I would contend that beyond the meeting rooms of seminary professors and the gathering together of well-meaning church leaders lies the dominant DNA of American faith that knows the desperate need people and our society have for redemption and transformation. And if you do not know this need, I would suggest the evening news as the best jolt to question these false assumptions with the grim reminder of the human condition. For example, is the message that we just need to learn to love other people going to stop the rumbling of those Russian tanks? No, our dilemma is that we know what is right, but we are unable of ourselves to do it as Paul so powerfully preached! And he asks, “who can free us from this bondage to sin and death? “Jesus” is the resounding response the Christian community from the Resurrection until this day.

The State of the Church is that today we have lost the message of the life giving, liberating, and loving Christ and we have sold our heritage of transformation in the power of his resurrection for a bowl of good intentions and therapeutic self-love.