A week ago, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Minnesota announced a reorganization plan that will eliminate twenty-one congregations in the metro, merging them into fourteen existing parishes. Stated another way, thirty-five current congregations will be downsized into fourteen. Some have suggested that if it wasn’t for the influx of Hispanic immigrants, the Roman Catholic church nationally would be suffering even greater declines in membership.
Of course, the problem of declining religious participation is not confined to Catholicism. Indeed, statistics suggest the decline in Americans who identify with religion is startling.
That shift is the decline in participation by all Americans, but particularly young adults, in churches. In 1990 only 7 percent of Americans indicated “none” as religious affiliation. By 2008 that number had grown to 17 percent. But among young adults, in their twenties, the percent of “nones” is reaching nearly 30%. The new “nones” are heavily concentrated among those who have come of age since 1990.
But wait, aren’t many conservative Christian denominations growing? Many evangelical churches thrive but at the cost of theological depth—“a mile wide and an inch deep”. Some are thinly veiled entertainment ministries. Joel Osteen Ministries is merely the most blatant example of the appealing “prosperity gospel” that too often characterizes the mega-growth churches, and makes charismatic leaders such as Osteen very wealthy.
But it is the judgmental scapegoating that is turning off this generation of young adults according to an article out of Seattle last week. Blaming the public perception of Christianity, as espoused by the religious right, for the stark decline in those identifying with religion, the article discusses a poll and a book entitled American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us, which:
makes the case that the alliance of religion with conservative politics is driving young adults away from religion …. Among the conclusions [of a major survey] is this one: “The association between religion and politics (and especially religion’s intolerance of homosexuality) was the single strongest factor in this portentous shift.”
Twenty somethings are walking away from the church, the article concludes, because of a skewed “public perception of religion as largely socially conservative,” and the perception of religion as homophobic is especially responsible for the growing percentage of “nones.”
An unrelated poll out last week suggests similar conclusions, and correlates with this blog’s recent theme of suggesting that conservative Christian policies are part of the problem of gay bullying and critically low self esteem for many young gays.
Most Americans believe messages about homosexuality coming from religious institutions contribute to negative views of gays and lesbians, and higher rates of suicide among gay youths, a new poll reports … Americans are more than twice as likely to give houses of worship low marks on handling the issue of homosexuality, according to a PRRI/RNS Religion News Poll released Thursday (Oct. 21).
After a recent spate of teen suicides prompted by anti-gay harassment and bullying, the poll indicates a strong concern among Americans about how religious messages are impacting public discussions of homosexuality.
Once again, there is a significant gap between the attitudes of younger versus older adults which mirrors very closely the higher percentage of “nones” among young adults.
Nearly half of Americans age 18-34 say messages from places of worship are contributing “a lot” to negative views of gay and lesbian people, compared to just 30 percent of Americans age 65 and older.
I’ll close by repeating the words of a young woman spoken at the ELCA Church Wide Assembly in 2009 (CWA09),
“Give us honesty,” she said. “My generation is turned off by what they see as hypocrisy in the church. ‘Love your neighbor’ is on the lips of the church, but a cold shoulder is what my generation sees.”
@Tim,
This will be my last commentary on this, because it does no good to 1) rehash a decision already made, regardless of how flawed or good it is 2) attempt to reason with individuals who simply state they are right, pure, and good , and that no errors were made in this process. I am glad that the system was so perfect, I guess that is why 10-20 churches a weekend are voting to leave.
It is obvious the “hijinks” I speak of are clear in a hierarchy that pushed this decision through ,regardless of cost. Between the two million dollars given by outside lobbying groups to repeated attempts to monopolize this issue over twenty years of the life of the ELCA, the church council WAS influenced from the PB on down. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out.
PB Hanson made it clear in the Hein Fry lectures of 2007 where he stood, and his attempt to say he was objective and above it all when he clearly stated otherwise in public is a joke. I don’t mind that he took an opinion and pushed for this, along with most of the churchwide staff, I just object to him not being forthcoming that was his opinion and was above the fray.
As a voting member in MN, the agenda was clear. From public comments at the podium, to language used in worship, to parading an African church as a “showpiece” of mission when they ended the week in tears and leaving the ELCA, itw as a farce. Comments were made at my dinner table after the vote that I heard in person as follows “Now that we have WON, we need to purge the church of all who disagree with us”. And yes, the word purge was used.
Again, I don’t disagree there are people of faith on both sides of this issue, I object to a process that was not from the grassroots, that had lobbyists and PAC funds used to achieve the stated results. And if it was from the grassroots, the results would not be playing out as they are
There are no “logical errors”. The error is in applying power politics in the Body of Christ. One read of church history shows it isn’t the first, and won’t be the last time. The hijinks were not in taking a stance, it was how that stance was conveyed as “neutral” when it was anything but that.
And before anyone cries out CORE or Word ALone was doing the same thing, i didn’t see them receive a two million gift to lobby to change church policy. I have no issue with groups within the Body of Christ pushing for their goals, I have a real problem with organizations not remotely connected to the church influencing debate.
Regards,
Jeff
Jeff,
As you have done in your previuos notes, you keep shifting the particulars of the argument. First it was bishops being ignored. Then it was a council committee being ignored. Now you bring up a bunch of other unstubstantiated accusations and assumptions.
I will honor your withdrawl from further commentary by not continuing to chase down your new charges.
Tim
@Tim
If you will Google and check out ARCUS, Hein-Fry, and many others, you will find there is a written and internet history. One cannot have discourse with those who will not face facts. Read, study, and understand.
We don’t have to agree. As the Senator once said, you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. You don’t have to chase down facts. They speak for themselves.
Regards,
Jeff
You are trying to make it out that the norm in our church is a 2/3 majority. But it is not. The norm for making decisions is a simple majority. A 2/3 supper majority is required in a small number of exceptions to simple majority votes. Most significant decisions actually would require only a simple majority. It is only extraordinary decisions that call for the super majority. Changing constitutions, changing affiliation, removing a pastor, entering into full communion agreements, etc. are all extraordinary decisions. Calling a pastor is extraordinary because calls are generally of indefinite length and difficult to terminate, plus the nature of the relationship it creates is deep and extraordinarily impactful on the life of the congregation and its members. Sort of these things, it’s basically only social statements that require 2/3 for approval, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t find any convincing criteria by which they are or should be exempted from the norm of decision by simple majority.
The game of trying to make it seem like a 2/3 supermajority is the norm for making decisions in the ELCA seems directed toward seeking to undermine the decision and make it seem illegitimate because it wasn’t subjected to an exceptional decision making process instead of the normal decision making process. From the very beginning of the call for a requirement of a 2/3 supermajority, it struck me as nothing but an attempt to prevent any changes in policy from being made by departing from the norms of our polity. It’s intent was to game the system. Your erroneous point above about needing 2/3 for “any significant decision” only reinforces that impression. The only “hijinks” going on is the attempt (from more quarters than just you, Jeff) to make it seem as if going with a simple majority was out of the ordinary, illegitimate, and somehow an exceptional case that is the result of some political maneuverings, pressure, or what have you.
It is not only extraordinary decisions . Read Robert’s Rules of Order. The 2/3 rule is in place for a reason-that on significant decisions, it is better to have overwhelming consensus than a split vote. You imply, by your words, that calling a pastor is extraordinary, or entering into full communion agreements is extraordinary. Is a decision that has led to at last count, from what we know only officially and not from future parish reports, over 400,000 members leaving the ELCA not “extraordinary”?
That is why calling a pastor, leaving a denomination, etc. is a super majority. If you have spent much time in a parish, you will that any decision of substance , such as a building program, or significant budget expenditure, is all about a super majority.
Sure, you can pass a building program or do something significant by simple majority, but often the effort won’t come to fruition because there is not overwhelming consensus.
There is “gaming the system” here, Mark. Last time I looked, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church is not Las Vegas.
Jeff
Sorry, Jeff, you’re stretching. Calling a pastor is an extraordinary decision. It is done but rarely and it has a huge impact on a congregation. It is not like the regular annual business like passing a budget or updating a building policy.
Your also confusing the wisdom of proceeding on something with the parliamentary rules attached to it. The argument you are making is that it might have been better had the church council recommended that the assembly simply receive the report of the task force and delay any action until such time as a greater consensus was reached. (Of course, this would have been counter to the instructions of previous assemblies to bring this matter before the CWA in 2009, which would raise other questions about the propriety of the church council’s actions.) But that’s a very different question than if it should, under the normal procedures and polity of our church, be required to reach one threshold or another when voted upon.
Your argument would support a position that it is unwise to proceed without a supermajority. I would disagree (because we are talking about making an option available for congregations, not forcing anything on even a single congregation) but I could see your point. But that is not the statement you are trying to support. You have been saying that the formal principle of passage should have been a 2/3 supermajority, and that is a very different matter. On that point I do not see it as simply a disagreement about a matter of opinion, but a factual matter of what our polity would normally require, which is that this simply is not one of those very few exceptions to passage by simple majority rule as per Robert’s Rules of Order and the ELCA constitution.
Dear Jeff,
I am quite familiar with Arcus. I am on the staff of Lutherans Concerned/North America. In this matter, I am very much more aquatinted with the facts than you are. The fact is, you are quite wrong about LC/NA receiving “two million dollars given by outside lobbying groups.” You don’t know the facts about our funding, and yet you continue to criticize and insinuate.
The two million dollars you mention is actually a long-term capital campaign that has not yet been completed. It began in 2004. This campaign is called “One Voice” and has nothing whatsoever to do with Arcus or any other “outside” funding group. It was a capital campaign run by and for ELCA Lutherans. The money is split between three Lutheran organizations, only one of which has been involved with working to change policy (LC/NA) since 2005. Let me repeat that for you: THAT MONEY CAME FROM ELCA LUTHERANS.
I think it might be helpful for people to know that the operating budgets of both “sides” have been largely equal for several years. Before 2005, the budget of WordAlone was about DOUBLE that of LC/NA. After that, up through CWA09, our budgets were comparable, with LC/NA’s tending to be somewhat SMALLER than the combined WordAlone and L-CORE budgets. (This is all public information, by the way.)
Which is to say: whatever difference there might have been in one group’s effectiveness in swaying opinion over another group’s, it had nothing to do with one side having more money than the other.
I should point out, for what it’s worth, that LC/NA has always highly encouraged individuals and congregations to financially support the ELCA (or its predecessor bodies). Always. For the whole history of LC/NA, beginning in 1974.
The pertinent question about funding is not whether it comes from “outside” or not, but rather: What is done with the money or because of the money? If we were to do something untoward with the money, that of course would be bad. Or, if we were in a position to provide kickbacks in some form to our funders, that of course would be bad. (That’s the problem with, say, corporate funding of political elections, where politicians are very much in the position of “returning the favor” in the form of legislation that favors, often financially, the funders.)
So what have we done with the money? Over the last twenty years (or so) there has been an enormous change in the church (across all denominations) at the grassroots level. Minds and hearts have changed, not “because” of the money that has been spent but because of the stories that have been told: personal stories, family stories, church stories, stories about God dwelling among us in Jesus Christ. We have spent money doing work bringing LGBT Lutherans and their families face to face with other Lutherans. Our work has been to help Peter meet Cornelius. Our work has been entirely done by Lutherans on behalf of Lutherans. Funding from Lutherans and from other groups has not changed our mission one iota—-it has only helped us do our mission more.
Grace and peace,
Tim
@Mark,
Mark, the COB encouraged 2/3, as did many others. It was not only those of us opposed to the changes that recommended this, but many others as well.
As I said , while you are correct that RR doesn’t technically require this, the fact that to date 10% of ELCA membership has left over this and probably another 10-15% more that won’t be known until parish reports get turned in means that there might have been some wisdom in the leaders having a pulse on the laity viewpoints on this before the vote.
The council could have listened to the COB and others, and they chose not to. Again, I am not arguing people didn’t wrestle with this, I am saying that leadership needs to have a pulse on the people-in a parish or denomination-and that simple majority rulings when at least half of the laity opposed this was not the route to go.
We can rehash all we want….thanks,
Jeff
@Tim
Thanks for clarifying that outside funding was received. CORE and WA funding came from individual donors, not large corporations or foundations. Groups outside a denomination, giving money to a group within, is still an outside donation. It is used to achieve goals and does not, therefore, come from those in the pews, but other sources. Period.
You say the questions isn’t whether you received money from outside sources, that is precisely the question. II didn’t see other groups receiving funding from the outside …..and that is not correct in the Body of Christ. If the grassroots wants change, then change should come, not as a result of dollars donated , but reasonable discussion and polity.
You approve the situation because the money helped an organization that wanted the changes. That’s fine, but the question remains should outside groups , in any way, fund entities or individuals within a denomination. If Core or WA got money from
some conservative foundation, it would be just as wrong.
Blessings,
Jeff
Jeff,
Yes, we received SOME funding from outside organizations. But again, that two million dollars you felt was so bad came from ELCA sources. Remember how you were all up in arms about that?
It is not a matter of the ELCA being within the Body of Christ, while other organizations are somehow outside of the Body of Christ. That is not a valid distinction. Many of the folks in funding organizations are people of faith, just like people in the ELCA.
We disagree on the status of funding from outside ELCA-related sources. I don’t find it wrong. Money itself is neutral–it’s what you do with it and because of it that matters. Various ELCA ministries receive money from the government in some cases, and from private (non-ELCA) organizations in other cases, as does LSS, LWF, and other ELCA-related bodies. If your standard is “no outside money allowed” than you are going to cut out a lot of money and you are going to cut it from things you happen to like.
I would hazard a guess (actually, a very educated guess, since I attended meetings of CORE and WA–yeah, I get around) that some large ELCA congregations gave significant money to CORE and WA but not much at all to ELCA mission support. Money that should have gone to general mission support went to fund the political activies of CORE and WA. Is that any better than what you accuse the other side of doing? I, for one, don’t think so.
Tim
@Tim
No, it isn’t any better. Our congregation didn’t finally support either CORE or WA. I don’t believe mission support should have suffered. But neither do two wrongs make a right. If that did happen, that is wrong. And so is any “outside funding”
I would be curious what ELCA ministries receive ‘private” funding. The government funds for the least and the last I understand. That is not about changing policy but assisting the least in society.
That is a whole different ballgame than money used to achieve certain policy objectives.
Tim-
I wasn’t going to get into this, but I honestly want to know your interpretation of Paul’s charge to Timothy in 2 Timothy 4: 1-4. Specifically, 2 Timothy 4:3, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather among them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
@Stephen Johansson
Although Tim is doing an outstanding job defending his position, I’ll jump in and respond to this comment.
First, it is the clear consensus of current scholarship that Paul was not actually the author behind the pastoral epistles, including 2nd Timothy.
Second and more importantly, the quote becomes a self-serving, open-ended admonition for any party to use against its opponents. Is it persuasive to suggest that LCMC, CORE, and WordAlone “gather among them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear”? I’m guessing you’re not persuaded, and neither am I when you attempt to use the statement against my views.
@Jeff
You term it as “achieve certain policy objectives” and distinguish that from “assisting the least in society.” But do we not sometimes assist our neighbor by achieving certain policy objectives? Those two things are not always separate. In fact, an important part of my motivation for working on these very policy objectives is to serve the neighbor, as well as to serve the ministry of the church–which, again, are not two seperate things. The previous policy was hurtful to many, many LGBT people and their families and friends and partners in ministry.
@Stephen
I concur with what Obie says above. The previous policy banning the rostered service of partnered LGBT was not consistent with sound doctrine. That’s a short answer, obviously, but I don’t think this comment thread is the place to get into all the doctrinal issues. And you really didn’t bring up a doctrinal issue, anyway, you just tossed a Bible quote at me. That’s a tempting thing to do, I realize, and I’ve done it myself. But almost never is it helpful.
@Tim
And policy should be changed on the basis of emotions and feelings. It should be based on informed discussion, sound doctrine, scriptural understanding, and the Apostolic church.
“Whenever someone says the Holy Spirit is doing a new thing, it must be wedded to the Word. If it is not joined to Scripture, then it may be only man’s opinion”.
Martin Luther
Jeff,
Policy wasn’t changed soley on the basis of “emotions and feelings.” And certainly “emotions and feelings” have informed the words and actions of just about everyone, on all sides of the issue. Those opposed to change used emotion just as much as anyone else.
Even Bob Benne praised the argumentation put forward by those supporting change at CWA09, saying that “the revisionists seemed to quote Jesus and the Bible as knowledgeably and persuasively as the orthodox. Passages reinforcing their respective agendas were selected and then brilliantly woven into their arguments. Both sides seemed to have the Bible on their side.”
Tim
@Obie Holmen
(1) Scholarly consensus does not make it so.
(2)It is also the scholarly consensus that Moses did not write the Pentateuch and that Noah did not exist. Yet Jesus talks about both as though that were not so. A more charitable reading of Stephen’s comment would be to see his reference to Paul as shorthand. Assuming that Moses did not write the Torah, Jesus would have baffled his readers if he had said, “Go and show yourselves to the priests and the Yahwist,and the Priestly writer, redacted by a 600 year old compiler told you to.”
(3) Whether or not Paul wrote Timothy, it is still in the canon.
Blessings TS
PS: BTW, I’m agnostic on the authorship questions….
I was Christian and lived in a very Christian area near Wheaton College. But I had a gay son and that really changed my attitude towards Christians. I saw how these “Christian” kids treated my son growing up, even though he did not tell me he was gay until high school. A lot of people seemed to catch on early though -even though I did not for quite a while. I remember in grade school a group of kids making fun of him because they didn’t think he liked girls. So it was a tendency that could be spotted by many in grade school. My son said he did not choose to be gay. He said there was sort of a spectrum of orientation and that he had always been gay. He said, “why would anyone choose this life – to be hated and ostracized?”
My son went away to Physician Assistant school in Iowa, where he felt that he faced more discrimination, again by “Christian conservatives” – and even from 1 or 2 teachers. He also did have some social problems being shy, probably the result of growing up feeling ostracized. Anyway, he became very depressed there with major depression. We tried to bring him home and pull him out of it but despite several hospitalizations and much counseling, we could not, and he committed suicide.
I realize that mental health played into to this too, but I know he was always hoping to be accepted just as any other human would be and when he got so far and still found the same treatment, especially from “Christians.”
So after his death I looked for a Christian church that supported gays and accepted them as any other human being, still have not found. I still need to talk to the United Church of Christ as I have heard they may be different. I have had to reject the Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and others because even though local churches may support gay individuals the national church still teaches that their orientation is immoral and they either cannot hold the preisthood or they have speical restrictions.
I know my son was a good person – probably better than most of the American “Christians” I have met. I do not believe they understand the bible and I don’t know why they always accept the word of the humans in the bible over the words of Jesus. I do not believe American Christians are true Christians like Jesus. Now all they support is the GOP and the rich and they preach and practice hate. Their BS about the gay agenda is way over the top. Gays are just trying to survive. Christians are the ones with the agenda and it is an evil one. Christians are the harassers in every way, ostracizing and hasseling them, trying to get them fired from their jobs and causing gay children to commit suicide.
You’re carrying a heavy burden. Godspeed as you search for a welcoming church. I would disagree with your characterization of the national church policies of the ELCA (Lutheran) and PC(USA) (Presbyterian). Both denominations enacted significant, pro-gay, policies at recent national conventions in 2009. So too for the Episcopal Church and the UCC.
I really feel sad for this lady. But Obie, national leadership and national policy do not necessarily mean that the local church will be all welcoming. In the Chicago area there should be churches that are welcoming though and I urge her to do some internet research to find the ones that claim to be truly open. I think suicide could have been the solution for my ex son-in- law if he hadn’t transgendered. I know a gay man who was very unhappy until he found a partner and they “married” He seems happy enough now. If this lady can’t find a Christian church as such, perhaps she might try a Unitarian Church for a while. It will be somewhat different, but she may find peace there.