Perhaps using the word "modernize" is a problem because it sounds like the church should follow the fads and trends of culture without critical analysis or prayerful reflection. Maybe it would be more appropriate to discuss the ongoing need for God's people to unpack or respond to the promptings of the Spirit within specific cultures and times. That has been the reality of the church in every place and time. Unfortunately religious institutions become so cautious that they are usually behind the people rather than leading them. Our role as prophets gets lost in the mix.

Maybe rather than 'modernize,' which to some of our younger leaders and members (when we've got them) sounds like we've missed the whole post-modern critique of the 'modern,' we should be talking about honesty. I think Patrick Malloy's piece at Episcopal Life about how he found a home in the Episcopal Church (from the Roman Catholic Church) captures this compellingly -
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/26769_1610_ENG_HTM.htm

I believe that the institutional churches need to lose their fear of change, noting how even the word "modernize" seems to frighten us. I sincerely love the church, especially the Episcopal Church, when we live into our commitments to be open and welcoming. I love the prayer book and its liturgy, but we need to really consider making spiritual development more of the church's public teaching rather than reserving it for the "faithful few" in the back room. The fact that persons are looking now more outside the church than within it for authentic spirituality is a sad commentary on what we have, in many places, allowed ourselves to become.

After reading some of the comments on this site on the use of the Lambeth formulation as an instrument for Anglican unity. I took time to read (most of) William Reed Huntington's Book, "The Church Idea." He wrote that the four characteristics of the perfect church were: (1) Visibility, (2) The indwelling Spirit of the Lord, (3) Unity and (4) Capability of perpetual renewal. I would submit that this four-legged-stool, might form a ground for addressing what seems to be our otherwise inevitable decline.

Yes, the term "modernize" is a problem. It's not a matter of being up-to-date or fashionable. We simply don't live in the same conceptual world as the church fathers or medieval theologians. Nowadays (see how hard it is not to suggest timeliness?) Authority must be backed up by evidence and experience. The church has offered a state of grace, but we live in a world without states, where everything is process.

Frankly, what is the "good news"? We don't believe in heaven or hell; we find ourselves to be organisms with consciousness, not bodies with spirits. For the church to find a role in a society in which it is not an authority, but one voice among many, will look very like the old church has died. I wanted to say the church should find a role in speaking for justice and mercy and self-awareness, but that's my opinion as to what the church is about. Obviously for many the church is about social order and power. The documents to which we appeal were written by human beings (though they deign to speak for god) and interpreting them comes down to one body of opinion against another. ("Belief" is an opinion supported by social pressure. William Temple observed that it was impossible to distinguish between a deeply held religious conviction and sheer prejudice. Neither depends on evidence.) If you feel you're being led by the (or a) Spirit, fine; I can't prove otherwise. But I suspect you're living out the implications of the story you've been taught and internalized and elaborated for yourself. That's what we all do.

So, modernize or die? Rather, how do we live in the world as we now understand it? The old worldview is dead. We aren't the peak of creation, we're part of the development of life on this planet. The church has stood for a message of compassion and justice (along with slavery and divine right of kings); I hope it can build and develop on that foundation. But then it will no longer be what it was; it will be something different.

Murdoch Matthew
Husband of Gary

I really don't think we should worry about any of this very much, since the church is going to change whether we like it or not.

The church is uninteresting because nobody talks about anything interesting - pretty much plain and simple, I think. Theology is fascinating - and especially now, when "worldviews" are changing. Trying to understand what it means to "believe in God" is fascinating - but the church doesn't discuss theology, or what it means to have faith, or how to get it. I'm not really sure why; it's bizarre.

If it wants "spiritual development," then all it has to do is look at its own past; it's all there. Frs. Thomas Keating et al. started Centering Prayer in the 1970s because they noticed that Christians were turning to Eastern religion in order to learn to meditate - but meditation and prayer practices like that are already deep at the heart of Christian faith and life, so there was never any need for it. The church had fallen away from the practices and disciplines and no longer knew what they were or how to teach them. And that's one strand of renewal going on today; there are others.

There are also some really terrific contemporary theologians around: Rowan Williams (whatever you think of him otherwise) is one; James Alison is another; Rene Girard is the one I find most fascinating, and is a third. I guess we'll have to wait generations for their thinking to get into the general thinking - but I'm pretty sure it will.

We don't need the church to do ethics; that can be done - and is being done - in the secular world. The church tells a story, and we're supposed to mine that story for what we think it's telling us - and of course it's going to be different from what it's been before. That's always been the case.

Religion offers practices - liturgies and worship and (in our case) the Great Church Year and its rhythms - and disciplines - prayer, fasting, almsgiving, spiritual development (as mentioned above), and the struggle with one's own faults (stemming, almost always, from ego). It offers deep ideas and beauty, too. And all of this is really a journey that never ends - because there is always more to uncover and see and understand - the goal of which is theosis ("the process of tranformation of a believer who is putting into practise (called praxis) the spiritual teachings of Jesus Christ and His gospel"). To me it ought to be - and at its best, is - a kind of "Outward Bound" program for the inner person and the spiritual life. And all of that exists already.

If it's not being offered, then it's completely understandable that people are drifting away. There's really nothing else the church is supposed to do, as far as I can tell.

It is possible there is nothing to do because the church, having succeeded in delivering certain goodies to the larger society, is no longer necessary, as Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo says in his book Belief. At one time the churches offered welfare, gyms for the kiddies, schools, counseling, etc. Nowadays the state provides welfare and there are psychologists and social workers who are better trained at helping people. We the so-called helping professions.

The demographics have changed. America developed its suburbs and neglected the cities, where some fancy mainline Protestant churches were located. People used to stay within their own tribe but nowadays associate with and partner with/marry people of different backgrounds. Sunday is for shopping now in a seven-day-a-week economy, with weird hours for part-timers.

Canadian theologian Douglas John Hall has argued that the church of the empire is over and that it is time to move onto other things.

Digging up old christian practices such as centering prayer will not in itself save a product which is no longer necessary. Eastern religions at least teach that things change and that if one's tradition ceases to exist, it is no big deal.

An expensive seminary training system which seminarians cannot afford given the low salary of many new clergy, along with congregations which can no longer afford full-time clergy, points to a tradition which is living in the past. Even if it prepared for the future, however, it is not clear people want or need the product.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Gary Paul Gilbert is, like most of us mortals, half right. Everything he says makes sense, but there is always, "the rest of the story."
In simple marketing terms there is a need for a new "product" from the followers of Jesus Christ. It is not a new one - it predates the "Church." it is simply a witness -- a group of folks walking in the Way, doing what Jesus taught, and lovingly challenging our society to 'love one another.'
People are leaving the Church because it is simply one more social organization that wants their money and survives only because of tradition/guilt/fear and a lot of tax breaks.
People leaving the Church are those for whom salvation and an afterlife have become meaningless concepts.
Church folks need to start talking about the real world and stop rearranging the deck chairs.

Bill Bonwitt

Digging up old christian practices such as centering prayer will not in itself save a product which is no longer necessary. Eastern religions at least teach that things change and that if one's tradition ceases to exist, it is no big deal.

Actually, Centering Prayer is something new, as I said above; it was invented in the 1970s, although it's based on old practices. In any case, the point your argument is based on is the very point that's at issue here: whether or not "religion is necessary." People - like myself - who don't agree with you on that point will simply ignore the rest of what you have to say. And of course, there are many billions of people on earth who don't agree with you on that point; religious faith is growing in many parts of the world. You need to actually address this point and explain why all those people are wrong and you're right before you can make arguments based on this conclusion.

Bill Bonwitt, if "salvation" is a meaningless concept at this point, then perhaps that's a good place to start. I don't think, BTW, that "salvation" needs, necessarily, to be automatically paired with "an afterlife"; I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I think the two concepts should in fact be unhooked before we can talk about either. (I don't agree, BTW, that most people "don't believe" in heaven or hell, or in an afterlife; I think this is directly contradicted by the facts. I believe there have been some recent studies on this which show that most people do believe in heaven and an afterlife. Will try to find these.)

Also from Pew: "Despite 'New Atheists,' 82% in U.S. Think There's An Afterlife." Also: "Eternal Destinations: Americans Believe in Heaven, Hell," at the rate of 81% and 70%, respectively.

So even if we're only talking about the U.S., several of the claims made on this thread about this topic don't jibe with fact.