6 responses

1. 

   Fred Garvin

   November 1, 2012

   Really? A good response? A lot of ad hominems and a few examples of wishful thinking tossed in with “Tis but a flesh wound!” pointless bravado.

   Reply
   1. 

      Drew Downs

      November 2, 2012

      Hi Fred, thanks for the comment! The two articles to which Rev. Ehrich was responding were poorly written and poorly sourced–both using old data as if it were new and cherry-picking the new data to prove their points. Particularly in Ross Douthat’s column, which was clearly wrapping his political conservatism into a discussion of church. What I found strong about Ehrich’s article was that he made reference to the wide variety of historic factors, most of which are demonstrated in the data when given more than the cursory glance that Douthat and Murdoch use to push push their pre-determined agenda.

      Reply
      1. 

         Fred Garvin

         November 2, 2012

         Which means, what, that you are shrinking away but not for the reasons Douthat mentioned? That you’re not really shrinking away-those people who aren’t going to Mainline Protestant churches anymore didn’t really belong there anyway and you’re going to be purified by all these trials?
         I still think that Ehrich was whistling in the dark. Douthat’s agenda was and is his but the truth of a proposition isn’t a function of its origin.
         Face it: forty percent losses in a third of a century mean that you either don’t notice or you don’t care so long as you have a comfortable ideological home and a form of outdoor relief for second-career “progressives” looking for something meaningful to do from 40-65.
         The fact, and you can check this out on any Mainline Protestant church’s own statistics, that barely 5% of those between 18-31 belong to ANY Mainline Protestant church is less a sign of a “revived membership” than an indication that another 1/3rd of you will be gone by 2030. And how you can claim to “Celebrate diversity!” while remaining over 95% White and middle/upper middle class is just too pathetic to require further comment.

         Reply
         1. 

            Drew Downs

            November 3, 2012

            The Mainline decline has been well-documented since the 1960s. No one disputes that. Other branches of Christianity have taken great glee at that struggle for a variety of reasons. But a similar decline in Roman Catholicism and now decline in Evangelical churches are being ignored in the story in much the same way the Mainline ignored the problem in the 1960s and 70’s.

            Douthat’s politics are important because his piece was not about the question of whether or not there was decline, but to blame it on progressive politics: a far too simplistic answer, and furthermore prevents him from naming Catholic decline during the same period, despite the church’s rightward turn. Nor does he recognize evangelical success with Baby Boomers is not showing any long-term success with GenXers or Mosaics. On the whole, 18-31 year-olds aren’t going to anyone’s church.

            I don’t think Ehrich’s optimism is based on purifying the church, but the many churches’ move to wrestle with hard topics and deal with them in their complexity-daring to recognize our mistakes. My own anecdotal experience of encountering a Mosaic that left the church made this argument: I can’t go to a (Conservative evangelical) church because my theology doesn’t match theirs. Nor can I go to a (Mainline church) because they refuse to say what they mean. This diagnosis has been replicated many times over and I’m led to believe that the Mainline’s problem isn’t one of politics so much as not adequately naming either belief or its struggle to define belief. That each of the Mainline Churches seems to be learning to do that now is a sign of hope.

            Lastly, the problem with Douthat was that he was one of several media members to look for political advantage after The General Convention of the Episcopal Church, mixing old (and incorrect) arguments with here say about his cherry-picked data. His bad article mixed with several even-worse ones were attempting to construct a narrative for political purposes that said “Conservative Christianity” is awesome and “Progressive Christianity” sucks. Particularly galling when his argument is that these churches are acting on political impulses, not theological ones. Talk about the pot worrying about the color of the kettle.

            Reply
            1. 

               George Waite

               July 26, 2014

               So you no longer want to pretend that the political/social positions taken by a large majority of Mainline bureaucrats is centrist but is left of center? Chalk one up for candor born partially out of desperation and class snobbery.
               Obviously the “Diversity Celebrations” will have to wait until you’re over 5% non-White in membership, though.

2. The Church’s Missing Ingredient

   August 12, 2014

   […] mainline, and The Episcopal Church is well-documented. It is also a favorite canard of the angry, seeking every opportunity to abuse the faithful. But it is also the favorite of the zealot, eager to drive us closer to where we ought to be. I […]

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.