Robert Putnam's "Bowling Alone" makes a pretty convincing argument that most forms of community, from churches to PTAs to bowling leagues, bars, and family picnics, have been in decline for the last fifty years. The book provides tons of interesting statistics and a good context for discussions of church growth and decline.
Steve Ayres

Equally pertinent are the recent studies that show a dramatic rise in the number of people who identify themselves as non-religious. The social pressure of attending church, or of even self-identifying as attending services no longer exists. When even the Southern Baptist Convention reports decline (as evidenced in one of the slides in the Hadaway report), there is a dramatic shift taking place in American religion, and there's no way to crunch the numbers that will make things look positive for the Episcopal Church.

My reason for asking the question is my suspicion that the decline in TEC is not just due to something TEC is doing or failing to do. The societal shift Putnam points to, and the shift from Churchgoing to Spirituality in the religious lives of Americans are realities we need to address. Just doing more of what worked 60 years ago isn't going to work today. The Mainline is now the Sideline.

I think that I am with Fr. Haller on this one. I just don't see that marketing strategies are going to help very much here unless it is clear in the marketing that we are going to be doing something "very different" from the old ways. I am beginning to think, however, that we are just not ready to be wholly committed to "doing things differently" because we really don't have a clear consensus on what that "different" way is.
SS Western Christianity is sinking in our post-modern West because it just doesn't seem worthwhile for most people. The responses vary from a "yawn" of "whatever floats your boat" to outright hostility that has a "trials of Nuremberg" view of Christianity rehearsing all of our "sins" from prehistory to the present (ala Dawkins, et al.). I happen to think that seeing our churches as "schools of spirituality" and perhaps some of our great holy places (cathedrals and the like) as sources of pilgrimage might "sell" if only we could say that we really had a new Christian way of being - one that draws, perhaps, upon the riches of our (confused and often contradictory) heritage but faces up to living in a secular, pluralist, post-modernist, atheist-agnostic world (and one that has adopted materialism as the solution to most of our ills). That "old style" Christianity has shifted its center to the global south/third world should surprise none of us. It works well in that cultural context still. It is no longer working in ours.
I suspect that some would suggest that my "waiting" approach (encouraging experimentation, innovation, meditation, contemplation, reflection, discernment) is a "head in the sand" one. I would counter that, for those with a market mentality approach, advertising only goes so far. To really "succeed" one has to have a quality "product." Our current "product line" is seriously out-of-sync with our society.
We also have to be clear about what we think "success" means. Is it just "full pews" and "lots of money" and "not closing any more churches?" Is it poaching converts from other branches of Christianity and getting them to be "brand" loyal to the Episcopal Church? Or is it having something of honest and sincere value that would really make a difference to the individual and corporate lives of the materialistic ho-hums or hostiles?

"To really "succeed" one has to have a quality "product." Our current "product line" is seriously out-of-sync with our society. "

This is true - but it doesn't have to be.

Frankly, I don't even know what our "product line" is - and this, to me, is the problem. We're not really saying anything except: Come, be welcome. And that's great, of course - but welcome to what? "Welcome to a religion that you don't actually believe or see the value in"? Why bother?

That was my attitude for most of my life. Why would I want to belong to the church, no matter what its "program" happened to be? What would be the point?

I was one of those people who returned to the church after 9/11 - and one of the few who stayed, drifting in and around it for a few years. But it was only after reading and thinking about the content of the faith - and many years after seeing some of its beliefs in impressive action - that I was "converted" to it and joined to stay.

Perhaps I'm unusual in that respect, but I don't think so. I think people can be drawn to faith by convincing them that it's worthwhile and in fact unique. "Transcendence" is part of it - but it's not nearly enough by itself.

@ Barbara

I would be _very_ interested in what it is that caused you to "stay." You hint at it in your note, but I am not sure what the "content" that kept you actually is. This is crucial information for all of us, I think, as we try to discern the "content" that is worth keeping.

On that same note, "coming out" as it were, what keeps me going is something very incomplete. I have been "churched" since I was a child, but not as a cradle Episcopalian. I had, however, become Episcopalian before I finally had "had it" with "church as usual." For me, it was direct and intimate contact with death and human (and animal) suffering that finally "broke the back" of traditional theism. I "tried out" Buddhism, but much of the religious worldview underpinnings were just too "foreign" for me, and seemed no more "relevant" than the "big guy in the sky" (e.g. multiple-rebirths/reincarnation, sky gods, hell-beings, etc). I did, however, "catch" some of it in terms of a self-acknowledgement that suffering comes from within. That, along with knowledge that religious practice, even as measured by the cold eye of science, has measurable benefits for individuals and societies. It was these things that have convinced me to "keep trying." My own practice has included the "Jesus Prayer," Lectio Divina, centering prayer, a spiritual exercise that I have invented that I call "active forgiving" as well as regular attendance at an Anglo-Catholic Episcopal Eucharist. I have read many books, but it never seems to be "quite right," perhaps because as a non-theist, I am just a little too far out for most teachers in Christianity. What "keeps" me is an environment where I am, at least, "tolerated," and the "hot house" effect of being together with other individuals for whom religious practice, to a greater or lesser degree _matters_. I know many spiritual people, but "masters" that could/would instruct/guide are sorely lacking. Our seminary education system may produce persons skilled in biblical scholarship, history and administration with a smattering of "counseling" ability built along traditional psychology outlines, but persons that can act as mentors/masters in spiritual formation/development---hard, very hard to find. As a "throw out" idea, what if our "clergy" were "educated" not on an academic/western model, but more on a monastic/practice model? Would this make a difference for us? Should we be asking less for "degrees" and more commitment to "practice?" Would that begin to move us more towards "spiritual" in what we do? Would "the world" care? Would we?

Jeffrey, I think it is much easier to write a paper than it is to do what is spiritually necessary to become a spiritual leader or at least guide for people. I think you have a point that priesthood must be based on spiritual practice that hungers for knowledge. If you really want to be a good priest, you'll do the reading anyway, but I do believe it takes real training and mentorship to make habits of prayer and spiritual practice, particularly those practices that benefit others beyond just the practitioner.

Finally, discussions of church are facing the question, Is church necessary? Is it even useful? Calls to "Just preach the Gospel" don't usually say what the Gospel is.

The early church was dissipating into local gnosticisms when Constantine made it a department of Empire. It has persisted as part of the social order under various authorities. Within the official structure, people have found value in various good works and spiritual disciplines. The task now is to nurture these individual approaches as the Empire and the social order fragment and lose authority. The Church has a noble history of art and practice -- can it adapt to present-day personal needs? This is a matter of concern to the institution. People are moving on regardless.

I loved the theatre of church -- my husband and I returned when we discovered Solemn High Mass at the Church of St. Mary the Virgin: Grand Opera every Sunday! A rector who always said, "The Church has taught . . ." rather than taking the Lessons as news reports.) Unfortunately, there are about two things in the Creeds that aren't fiction (not to denigrate fiction, a powerful medium, but you can't sell it as fact anymore). I edited a bookclub edition of Way of a Pilgrim in the 1960s; now I have the Jesus Prayer stuck in my head, whether I want it or not.

Perhaps at 80 I'm into nostalgia rather than spirituality. I would like to see the experience of the church carried on. Medieval theology is dead, but the stories are glorious. I don't want a spiritual director -- too much parent/child vibe. "Mentor" is better, if they have some real experience to offer, not just regurgitated book theories. Meditation seems to have a physical basis; I would like to know more about that.

I don't see that seminaries teach much "biblical scholarship, history, and administration" -- what graduates seem to know is liturgy and priestcraft. Scholarship and history would help in useful preaching; graduates definitely should be prepared to run the small business that is a parish. Maybe an apprentice system would be better than seminary.

I read that the Greeks thought we moved backward into the future, seeing the road behind us but not the road ahead. I think they were right, but we're speeding along in any event.

MM--

I like your comment about spiritual direction versus mentorship. It seems that, too often, people run to clergy only when they are in trouble, which in many ways disrespects the value that clergy can bring to our daily lives. Obviously, it's important to maintain boundaries, but the challenges of life are often found not in the big event of life, but in the business of day to day life. It would be great if more clergy could see their role as mentor, and less as "spiritual life preserver."

Eric Bonetti

Dr. Shy, I'm thinking about your question - but it's a bit hard to sum up or describe in a blog post comment!

I'd say the general idea, though, was this: reading about the faith, I recognized that Christianity was dealing with everything that could happen in the world, from the heights to the depths of human experience. I realized that it told the stark truth about the human condition and life on earth - and that that truth hasn't changed. I realized it wasn't somebody's abstract idea or some idealistic program about "how the world ought to be" or "what you've got to do"; it was instead, the frank truth about life. It was real. It was amazing and terrifying.

I realized that there was always a crucifixion going on someplace - and that that fact would never change. I realized, too, by watching some of the things the church did, that at least parts of it took very seriously the idea that human life had been sanctified by the Incarnation - and would act on that understanding. (I've talked about some of these things here: the Catholic Church's willingness to provide a dignified life for a man I know who otherwise could not have survived at all. The same church's elaborate and reverent funeral service for a poor old woman who had nothing at all in the world. It's been exactly these things that some regard as "small questions" that have made me sit up and take notice, and made me realize that Christianity has something really very important to offer.)

I thought and still think that Christianity has hit on some crucially important truths about life - so important that it really hardly matters at all whether each and every detail of the story is literally "true" or not. The story seems perfectly reasonable enough, to me; who would doubt that a man was born poor someplace in some occupied land, and eventually tortured and executed by the state? And if Jesus didn't say all those things - well, then: who did? Even Albert Einstein said that he found Jesus a "luminous figure"; I totally understand this, because even when I was outside the church, I realized this was probably the best story ever told. I've read quite a number of times now about nonbelievers having dreams or visions of Christ; it's an amazingly powerful story.

So, if I think the Gospels are telling the straight-ahead truth; and if I think Christianity has hit on some really important ideas; and if I think those who profess it often perform the most amazing acts of charity (i.e., caritas: love); and if I agree with you about the data on the link between faith and health; and if I think the story is the best I've ever heard: what's not to like?

(I should add, I think, that the things I talked about the Catholic Church doing above - these things could only have been done by the church.

The world would never have offered poor, afflicted people a way to make a dignified living, or a dignified, holy passage out of this world. And individuals in the church would never do it, either; we as individuals are not good enough, and do not have enough staying power or love by ourselves, to perform these kinds of acts. As individuals we sway with the winds, different yesterday and today and tomorrow, lost in our moods and desires and general self-interest.

But the church can do it, because it sets these things as "important things we need to do." So the things can be done, and are, whether we as individuals are up to it or not.

And nobody else will do it; only the church as a whole has a reason and the desire to.)

I don't think that the church has told "the stark truth about the human condition and life on earth." We're not fallen from a perfect creation; we're developments of previous life-forms. We're tribal, and tend to believe what the tribe believes; we waver between the welfare of the group and our own self-interest.

Charity is something we can do on a small scale as individuals; seeking Justice goes against the interests of powerful interests and angers wealthy supporters. Charity is a worthy impulse, but the needs are far beyond the resources of private groups -- we need Justice to address the causes of the needs at issue. Charity is good, but it can be a way of justifying the organization while leaving hard questions of Justice unaddressed. (There was a major discussion of this elsewhere on the Café.

Compassion, Justice, Mindfulness -- are to me the essential virtues. The reach of compassion is limited; money trumps Justice nowadays; and we're encouraged by our rulers to divert ourselves with games, entertainment, and trivia. Knowing ourselves, and our predicament, might help us to work backward toward compassion and justice.

@ Barbara

My sincerest thanks for sharing your experience, journey and perspective. I do think that this kind of "making public" these individual experiences can and will be helpful as we "reinvent" the church in new ways or "rediscover" it in old ones (There is nothing new under the sun. : ) )

@ Matthew Murdoch

Whether one feels that humans have fallen from a former perfection or have failed to rise/develop to their highest potential, it still boils down to a "deficiency" in who we are. I would tend to suggest that it comes from the retention of our "lower" and "animal" nature, that part of our brains that is programmed with the capacity for hunger, rage, hatred, harm, selfishness, self-preservation at all costs, but in the end, I think both perspectives suggest that we _can_ be more, we can be better. I do think that that "hope" nurtured in the life in the church, both for individuals and our world, is an important one.
I am grateful at your sharing your feelings on the "essential virtues." Compassion and justice are, I would think, just two aspects of the same thing. Mindfulness is the way to "comprehend" this both communally and socially. I have tended to embrace "Compassion" and have been particularly grateful towards Marcus Borg who has insisted in his "speaking Christian" that "mercy" that we encounter so often in our literature is really better rendered or translated as "compassion." It is not a "superior to inferior relationship." How it changed my recitation of the Jesus prayer and the "currently not very popular" Kyrie in the liturgy to make them prayers for compassion! Ditto for the beatitudes, that often-neglected but oh-so-important key to Jesus teachings. Thanks again for sharing. I always value your insights and perspectives as do many others, I am sure.

I don't think that the church has told "the stark truth about the human condition and life on earth." We're not fallen from a perfect creation; we're developments of previous life-forms. We're tribal, and tend to believe what the tribe believes; we waver between the welfare of the group and our own self-interest.

Fortunately, we're not required to take the story of Adam and Eve literally. I'm honestly not sure why anybody would.

What, BTW, is "Justice"? Can you define this, so we know what we're talking about at least? And what are the "needs at issue" you're referring to? Do you think "Justice" can help the mentally ill, the addicted, the elderly, the broken, the grieving, the sick, the dying? How? Also, why are you setting up an opposition between charity and justice?

I'm not sure who the "rulers" your referring to are; can you elaborate? Who is forcing anybody to "divert themselves with games"? And what will enable us to "work backwards towards compassion and justice" - if it hasn't done so already? How do we attain the virtues you mention?

(I should also state my doubts here that "Charity is something we can do on a small scale as individuals" when it comes to doing something to help the people I mentioned above: the mentally ill, the addicted, the elderly, the broken, the grieving, the sick, the dying. And every single one of us will be in one of these categories at some point in our lives.

Individuals generally don't do these things on the scale on which they need to be done in order to make a difference. Individuals have their own lives and problems.

The church can do these things, though, and does.)

Of course, "charity" is first and foremost the English rendition of "caritas," which in its turn is the Latin equivalent of the Greek "agapē" - love. Real charitable giving is spurred by love.

Sometimes there is a conflict between love and justice. It's my experience that when such conflicts arise in Christianity, love trumps justice, and a good thing it is, too.

I still that the denomination should have some big marketing campaign - local tv commercials, invite a friend to church day, or revivals of some sort. Instead of expecting everyone to come to us, let's go to them.

Eric

I remember seeing Episcopal commercials years ago, Eric. I think they had George Burns reprising his God role. I wonder why we aren't still doing them?

(I should add that when I said "terrifying" above, I meant in the good, thrills-'n'-chills, mysterium tremendum, Annie-Dillard-"Why-aren't-they-issuing-crash-helmets?" sort of way.

What Christianity says is spooky, to me - in a way that, whenever I think about it, almost immediately opens up a mystical door and a new way of thinking. It's a "thin place" between the ordinary world and the Divine. Its essential equation is this:

"itinerant first century rabbi tortured and executed by the state" = "Lord of the Universe"!

(And just try to come up with that idea by yourself, if you can! The whole thing turns the world completely upside down, and re-orders the imagination in what is to me an utterly unique way.)