I've grown up in ELCA congregations and have had the privilege to serve in a handful, as well as attend, with some regularity, some non-mainline churches. I'll be the first to admit that I've enjoyed and felt able to worship God in both kinds, but that experiencing two typically different worship styles has left me wanting a mix of both that I haven't quite found yet. Although I am supportive of a lot of what the mainline churches have to offer, I think there are certainly valid critiques. But, for me, I don't want to throw this baby out with the bathwater.
Rachel Held Evans has been talking on her blog about her experience, attraction, and disillusionment, with the church. I can understand where she's coming from when she points out that "going from evangelicalism to the mainline can feel a bit like jumping from one extreme to the other". Personally, I think that's problematic in many ways. While her post, "Mainline and Me", greatly generalizes (and I'm sure my mainline Protestant colleagues and friends can think of many examples where her statements don't ring true), I think there are points she makes that ring true to many.
What I really want to bring your attention to is this response by Presbyterian pastor, Aric Clark. In his post, he owns up to some of the shortcomings of mainline churches, but also explains how not all of the stereotypes are fair and where they might be coming from. Here is a small excerpt [Rachel's initial statements are in bold, with Aric's responses following]:
"I miss the emphasis on cultivating a personal spirituality."
It is true that there is not as much emphasis on personal piety in the mainline. Our preaching, our theology, and our worship are all oriented around systemic and communal spirituality. If you hear someone talking about sin they are more likely talking about big problems like environmental degradation, economic justice, and war, than about issues of personal morality like adultery or gluttony. Our bias just runs that way.
...
Indeed there has been a significant rise in personal spirituality in the mainline in recent years. Most study groups I encounter would rather be reading Thomas Merton or Henri Nouwen than Dominic Crossan. They’d rather pick up Barbara Brown Taylor’s An Altar in the World than N.T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God.
"I miss the familiarity with scripture and the intensive Bible studies."
Biblical literacy is a big problem in most mainline churches. There is nothing to be said to that, but “Amen.” We need to do a better job of teaching our people the Bible.
At the same time, the mainline is the beating heart of Higher Criticism. Without scholars from the mainline willing to challenge the idea that the Torah was written by Moses, the creation accounts, the Flood, and the Exodus may not have been historical events etc... modern Biblical scholarship as we know it wouldn’t exist. All of the modern translations, commentaries, and interpretations owe a huge debt of gratitude to the spirit of rigorous intellectual honesty that the mainline is primarily responsible for cultivating.
In my congregation we employ Historical Critical Method in our Bible studies. Our people wrestle with the origins, the politics, and the historicity of every text. They are free to express their doubts and their confusion. In three years we have studied the entire Old Testament book by book and the Gospels and will begin studying the Letters of Paul next. They may not be able to quote chapter and verse, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are wrestling with the Bible in an intense way.
"I miss that evangelical fire-in-the-belly that makes people talk about their faith with passion and conviction."
...You won’t find many praise hands, and there will be even fewer shouts of “Amen” or “Preach” from the gallery. Many mainliners choose not to speak of their faith very often in public. These stylistic, but not in my opinion substantive, differences give rise to the charge that we are lukewarm.
I think it is misplaced.
Over 60 years ago when it was still extraordinary for women to work out of the home in this country the mainline was making the theological case for women in ordained ministry against the overwhelming opposition of most Christians throughout history. We have steadfastly maintained that witness and grown better at promoting female leadership in the face of constant criticism and great cost to our congregations and to some individuals. That is not the behavior of people who are dispassionate or wishy-washy.
Moreover, this isn’t unusual for the mainline. We have been deeply involved in movements for abolition, suffrage, civil rights, economic and environmental justice, and now we are at the forefront of the movement in the church for LGBTQ inclusion. Every one of these stands was costly and unpopular. It takes conviction and courage to speak against the culture. It requires a fire in the belly to speak against our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who have often called us heretics and apostates.
Rachel Held Evans has been talking on her blog about her experience, attraction, and disillusionment, with the church. I can understand where she's coming from when she points out that "going from evangelicalism to the mainline can feel a bit like jumping from one extreme to the other". Personally, I think that's problematic in many ways. While her post, "Mainline and Me", greatly generalizes (and I'm sure my mainline Protestant colleagues and friends can think of many examples where her statements don't ring true), I think there are points she makes that ring true to many.
What I really want to bring your attention to is this response by Presbyterian pastor, Aric Clark. In his post, he owns up to some of the shortcomings of mainline churches, but also explains how not all of the stereotypes are fair and where they might be coming from. Here is a small excerpt [Rachel's initial statements are in bold, with Aric's responses following]:
"I miss the emphasis on cultivating a personal spirituality."
It is true that there is not as much emphasis on personal piety in the mainline. Our preaching, our theology, and our worship are all oriented around systemic and communal spirituality. If you hear someone talking about sin they are more likely talking about big problems like environmental degradation, economic justice, and war, than about issues of personal morality like adultery or gluttony. Our bias just runs that way.
...
Indeed there has been a significant rise in personal spirituality in the mainline in recent years. Most study groups I encounter would rather be reading Thomas Merton or Henri Nouwen than Dominic Crossan. They’d rather pick up Barbara Brown Taylor’s An Altar in the World than N.T. Wright’s Scripture and the Authority of God.
"I miss the familiarity with scripture and the intensive Bible studies."
Biblical literacy is a big problem in most mainline churches. There is nothing to be said to that, but “Amen.” We need to do a better job of teaching our people the Bible.
At the same time, the mainline is the beating heart of Higher Criticism. Without scholars from the mainline willing to challenge the idea that the Torah was written by Moses, the creation accounts, the Flood, and the Exodus may not have been historical events etc... modern Biblical scholarship as we know it wouldn’t exist. All of the modern translations, commentaries, and interpretations owe a huge debt of gratitude to the spirit of rigorous intellectual honesty that the mainline is primarily responsible for cultivating.
In my congregation we employ Historical Critical Method in our Bible studies. Our people wrestle with the origins, the politics, and the historicity of every text. They are free to express their doubts and their confusion. In three years we have studied the entire Old Testament book by book and the Gospels and will begin studying the Letters of Paul next. They may not be able to quote chapter and verse, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are wrestling with the Bible in an intense way.
"I miss that evangelical fire-in-the-belly that makes people talk about their faith with passion and conviction."
...You won’t find many praise hands, and there will be even fewer shouts of “Amen” or “Preach” from the gallery. Many mainliners choose not to speak of their faith very often in public. These stylistic, but not in my opinion substantive, differences give rise to the charge that we are lukewarm.
I think it is misplaced.
Over 60 years ago when it was still extraordinary for women to work out of the home in this country the mainline was making the theological case for women in ordained ministry against the overwhelming opposition of most Christians throughout history. We have steadfastly maintained that witness and grown better at promoting female leadership in the face of constant criticism and great cost to our congregations and to some individuals. That is not the behavior of people who are dispassionate or wishy-washy.
Moreover, this isn’t unusual for the mainline. We have been deeply involved in movements for abolition, suffrage, civil rights, economic and environmental justice, and now we are at the forefront of the movement in the church for LGBTQ inclusion. Every one of these stands was costly and unpopular. It takes conviction and courage to speak against the culture. It requires a fire in the belly to speak against our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who have often called us heretics and apostates.
No comments:
Post a Comment