16
votes
Western Christianity isn't dying out from natural causes. It's dying of suicide.
Original article in 'The Telegraph': Western Christianity isn't dying out from natural causes. It's dying of suicide.
Same article syndicated in 'The Age': Why Western Christianity has a death wish. (in case the paywall on the Telegraph article blocks you)
It is a bit predictable, that, unless I am mistaken, this is an article by a right-wing Catholic primarily attacking the American Episcopal Church (and to a lesser extent the Church of England) for its left-wing stances and the different directions the Episcopal and Catholic Churches have chosen in recent years. I mention this not to attack the author's choices, but instead to point out that this article's content could be summarized as "the Episcopal Church should by more like my Church:" it is less introspection or thoughtful analysis than it is interdenominational bickering.
The Episcopal Church, and the Church of England, both have heavily declining attendance, that is true. But presenting those statistics outside of a larger context is heavily disingenuous. Attendance at Catholic churches in the same regions, after all, has also fallen: just think of the mirror-image of this article, beginning with the Pope's recent visit to Ireland. I expect that statistics would show that, on the whole, religious attendance in more educated and developed regions of the world has been falling.
The problem isn't one of "Western Christianity" dying, it's one of religion as a whole.
Churches have chosen different paths in attempting to combat this illness. To use the examples of the American Catholic and American Episcopal Churches, I would argue that the Catholic Church has chosen to move in a more fundamentalist, right-wing direction, borrowing from conservative American Protestant groups, whereas the Episcopal Church has taken a decidedly left-wing, progressive direction, borrowing from modern American progressivism and leftism.
While it is too soon to say which was, in hindsight, the better choice over the long term, over the short term, I think statistics suggest that neither has been extremely effective so far, and both have significant downsides and challenges.
Yet this author's view of the Episcopal Church's choices as "deference" rather than a choice borne of true conviction and belief is absurd. The Church has outright fought a bloody battle in the US court system over the last several years against more conservative groups within the Church who have disagreed with its choices: there are entire dioceses that have left. It has seen itself ostracized in the Anglican Communion's governance as a result of its strong convictions. It has seen protests against its churches, and an IRS investigation of one of the more strong-willed churches. These are not the actions of a cowardly priesthood trying to appease the scary left.
Unfortunately, the author appears to insist that beliefs he disagrees with are not honestly held, and that those who make choices other than those he would have preferred do not do so by their own convictions. He appears to at least borrow from the ideas the Western-Marxist-conspiracy-theory view, suggesting that the Episcopal Church is trying to appease the mythical soldiers of the Frankfurt School. I wouldn't have been surprised if he had mentioned Gramsci at some point, though he does have the "establishment 'blob' that conservatives complain dominates education."
And, in doing so, he does exactly what he accuses others of doing: he blames "our falling numbers on everything but ourselves." The problem, he insists, isn't a decline of our religious belief, it's that the "greying church leadership" of a Church he disagrees with is trying to appease people he disagrees with.
I would argue, instead, that the Episcopal Church, and parts of the Church of England, are, in the face of declining participation, trying to take a noble route of more openly supporting views they truly hold, even if the face of challenging and offending their more conservative members. After all, despite the author's view, there are many who strongly feel that leftism, and even socialism, are heavily tied to Christianity and Jesus' views. There are certainly, at times, awkward attempts at appeals to popular taste within the Church, yes---and Grace Cathedral certainly does quite a bit of this---but I would argue that those attempts are not related to the theological and moral beliefs being preached.
Is this approach, which I see as honest, actually working? I don't have numbers, but I would argue that the author doesn't either: as much as the enormous Grace Cathedral might have empty seats in the back, has the author compared it with Episcopal churches that take conservative views? In having been to a number of Episcopal churches while traveling, overall attendance may be declining, but churches like Grace, or even arguably outright socialist churches like All Saints in Pasadena, appear to be the most attended, not the least. Churches that take conservative perspectives appear to be utterly dead or dying, including those that have left the Church entirely. If the Church, as he argues, were "dying of suicide," wouldn't these conservative rebels be the seeing the most attendance? At the one church we almost left mid-sermon during our travels because of its rhetoric, one reason why we did not was that there could not have been more than a dozen other people there.
Yet even if numbers are declining as a result of what I would argue to be the preaching of actual beliefs, when the author writes that "[articulating] a preference for the poor" does not "win a single convert to Anglicanism" and only serves to "confirm the beliefs of Left-wing atheists," is he arguing that priests shouldn't prefer the poor, because it doesn't 'challenge' atheists? Has he considered what Jesus spent a huge amount of time doing and saying? Is he suggesting that priests should choose what to preach not based on their beliefs, but on what will avoid "validating" atheists? This verges on the maddening trend in American politics where truth and belief is subservient to the goal of hurting the 'other side.'
Finally, in conclusion to this part of my comment: couldn't one write the same opinion piece, equally invalid in my mind, from the opposite perspective, arguing that the Catholic Church in the same regions is dying because it is trying to appease the American far-right, rather than preaching from belief?
The comment above was a response to the article. This is more of a personal take:
I need to make an important admission, having opened my other comment by discussing Tim Stanley's political and religious beliefs: I am just the sort of person the author argues the Episcopal Church is trying to appease. My wife is Episcopal and an academic historian, who converted away from Catholicism as a result of theological and moral differences. I'm a physicist, and though my family and I are, in some sense, culturally Christian, we are all atheists.
I don't know whether the views the author sees as appeasing me, and I see as genuine belief by the clergy preaching them, serve to engender belief in me. I don't think that belief can be reduced to such rational terms: to an argument made in a sermon, to a political or scholarly agreement or disagreement. I do know that being intellectually honest, trying to engage in wider scholarly contextualization, analysis, and introspection, and being inclusive and engaging rather than hostile, keeps me listening.
The same cannot be said for the sermon at my friend's Catholic wedding, where the direct implication of the priest's sermon was that, as non-Catholics, the love my wife and I had for each other, and the love of every other non-Catholic married couple, was meaningless and sinful, and that the newlyweds must be examples in the fight against evil modern society. Or for the sermon at a small Episcopal church in the New York countryside, where the minister spoke only of how horrible Church leadership was for choosing to talk about the rich and poor and to be inclusive rather than speaking only about God in the abstract, and not challenging the beliefs of traditional Episcopal families, as a result of leftist academic infiltration.
I will admit that appeasement within the Episcopal Church is frustrating, and does exist. I see that appeasement, however, as being related to events, outreach, and gimmicks rather than actual theological or moral views. Grace Cathedral does have embarrassingly awkward events to draw in new attendees: the last time we went there, they had just had some sort of service of Beyoncé songs. All Saints, particularly under Mike Kinman, has had some horribly considered and culturally demeaning attempts at gimmicky inclusivity within the services themselves, particularly as a large church of mostly affluent white liberals, while often having shallow capitalism-is-bad, diversity-is-good sermons with insignificant intellectual content, to the point where I don't attend most times when my wife does. The National Cathedral, meanwhile, is inoffensive in any direction to the point of seeming more willing to talk about the construction of their prayer cushions than anything theological, and seems afraid to even mention to visitors that it is actually Episcopal.
This is, for the most part, appeasement through presentation and gimmickry, not content. It is not at all unique to churches: it's the same sort of activities that many organizations---companies, universities, non-profits, political parties---do to try to promote themselves to new groups.
And I have to assume that, to some extent, these actually do work, considering how often they show up: I just don't think I'm the target audience. To some extent, I'd rather just have the sermon without the service, and more importantly, have the sermon be intellectually rigorous, rather than shallow or dogmatic. This latter point is difficult: I feel like I have seen it done best by some small university churches, and, oddly, by St James Piccadilly. I also think it has a tendency to be less interesting to others, which is why I understand its rarity. Yet it remains that the sermons I have felt were best in the Episcopal church didn't appease me, as the author would argue, but instead challenged me, unless he is arguing that the mere attempt to engage with someone at an intellectual level, and not exclude them, is appeasement.
I would disagree: there is a difference between being challenging, and simply hostile. Maybe the former won't succeed in converting people like me, but the latter won't even have a chance to. On ther other hand, I don't see how the views of the Episcopal church are supposed to appease me, as the author suggests. There are still, obviously, significant differences in our views, and, through reason, analysis and argument, the best sermons of the Episcopal church do challenge me, within a scholarly context I can actually respect, rather than just insulting me.
Wow, frankly this was better than the article you were responding to. Thank you.
To be fair, he does say that the Catholic Church has the same problem, if only in passing. Though I'm sure he has some political motive in writing this, I think he makes a good point in saying that we don't talk enough about God in engaging with general society. We should point out and decry the persecution of the poor and marginalized, but at the same time we should proclaim that God blesses the poor and oppressed. We should take a stand against injustice while also reminding victims that God stands with us even when there is no justice. There's a great deal of good in the "secular" side of social justice, and it may be best to emphasize that at times, but it isn't the same as the gospel, and if we fail to share the gospel, then we aren't acting as His disciples.
It's an interesting point that by validating an admittedly shallow society, the church is withering away in it. It supposes that the 'true' role of religion is to challenge society to be better. Like it's supposed to be that nagging voice in everyone's mind saying, "you can do better."
I'm just worried about what that looks like. If the church assumes that it's meant to be society's guiding light, then it will, of course, lash out at whatever it feels has replaced it. I'm worried that religious people may end up seeing themselves as having been robbed of some divine role in society, and that they will respond accordingly to that if this argument plays out long enough.
Yet, I still kind of agree that religion should challenge rather than validate people. The church shouldn't just be a place to be safe and welcome, but also a place to grow as a person. That sort of personal development only comes from being challenged. While that may make it seem like the reason for people are abandoning religion is because they aren't being challenged, I actually think the problem is that they are being challenged too much.
God simply doesn't have a place in a world where some arbitrary asshole can press a button and end it all. The author specifically mentioned nuclear threats, and I think that was just the start of four-decades of society challenging itself in ways that were unimaginable when God was around. To find a place for God in society is too challenging. Where can an almighty being with the ultimate power of creation and destruction stand when humanity already has both those things?
For churches to survive, they need to abandon God and find something new. Which is disturbing to think about, because the only possible guide for humanity with so much power is a powerless one. Humanity needs to take the helm of contemporary theological canon for religion to 'work' in today's age; humanity needs to be able to choose not to follow whatever divine replacement the church comes up with. The only fit I can think of is the dragon and Beasts of Revelations - both essentially powerless but still great and divine. For religion to work in today's age, they need to become everything they've stood against for the past millennia.
That's oxymoronic. Christian churches exist specifically to worship God and preach His word. They're not just social clubs or community centres or even teachers of morality, they are first and foremost places of worship. Take God away and you take away their reason for existing.
There are the Unitarian Universalist churches that hold services that borrow traditions from Christianity but are non-theistic. I'm generally agnostic / lightly atheist but I've been to my local Unitarian Universalist church a few times for certain services that they do. They do a yearly Transgender Day of Remembrance service for example.
Can one really call them Christian churches if they don't believe in the divinity of Jesus?
No, not really. They describe themselves as Humanist and welcome to people of any religion. There are some that attend that are Christian and believe in it and they do have discussions of Christianity in some services.
Right. So my point remains: you can't remove God from Christian churches.
Sure. But I wasn't talking about Christian churches, specifically. Churches of all religions are struggling. Temples, Mosques, Catholic or Lutheran - all religions are struggling. To survive, I suspect they need to abandon the traditional notions of their Gods that built them up. I guess I'm saying only a new religion with a new, powerless God can hope to survive today.
In a topic about Western Christianity, and with your repeated references to churches (rather than mosques or synagogues or temples), it was easy to assume you were talking about Christian churches.
But religions can't do that. They can't throw away the central reason for their existence. It's not like people just make these things up. They're based on the Word of God (or Jehovah or Allah). Take away God (or Jehovah or Allah) and there's nothing left. It's a bit silly to tell religious people to just change the religion handed down to them from God (or Jehovah or Allah) Himself.
Like Buddhism or Jainism?
I would also point out that, to paraphrase Samuel Clemens, the reports of Christianity's death are greatly exaggerated - despite this article's title. Christianity is not about to drop off its perch any time soon. Nor will Islam or Judaism or any of the other religions. They may not continue to hold preemptive places in their respective societies in the future, but they're not going to die. They'll just move into the background and become more private and personal than public and political.
I don't see much in this article to disagree with except for the thesis. If the Church is complacent, that doesn't mean it desires death. And for every rector making a cringe-worthy appeal to popular taste, there are dozens of Christians quietly living their lives as faithfully as they know how. By any metric, the church in America is struggling right now, but it's the wisdom of the world that predicts success numerically.
The wisdom of God is hope in the face of despair, even at the foot of the cross. The truest thing this writer says is that churches "need to be strong for when people decide they do need them." We won't do that by finding the correct parts of society to challenge, though, but by challenging ourselves. When we make ourselves disciples of the Word, we draw those who need us in effortlessly. That is how we stay strong.
I agree. If there is a reason why Christianity is dying, it's not for lack of care. I can think of two more probable reasons off the top of my head.
The one that I would like to believe if I were less jaded is that the internet brought information into the hands of the masses, and social media has lead to the wide distribution of arguments against the existence of a god.
But far more likely is that Christians have not done a good job of representing their image in the public sphere. Christianity is actually an umbrella term that many religions fall under, but it's rare for those people to represent themselves as part of those religions - they just say they're Christian. And "Christian" practically means nothing. Worse still, that means that they get punished for the negative connotations applied to the label with the help of fundamentalists and other fringe groups. Now all of Christianity has to deal with the image of pedophile priests and the preacher on the street corner yelling messages of hate.
Not to mention the politicians who can't resist the temptation to enshrine their dogma in law because they don't understand why maintaining the wall of separation between church and state is a Good Thing™.
This may be cynical, but I think a large part of it is that, in the developed West, religions lack the carrots and sticks they had in earlier times. You won't get fired and (in the vast majority of cases) your mother won't disown you for leaving one religion for another, or for no religion. Similarly, there is no social benefit to going to the "right" church (which there definitely is historically, and in other countries).
I'm not suggesting that this is the only reason people are involved in religions, but rather that maintaining a social environment where people who would otherwise not care about it are induced to do so is a necessary substrate for the kind of highly religious societies we had historically.
From how I see it, with Christian hypocrisy already being a major image problem, the widespread support of Donald "Grabbem by the pussy" Trump by Christians basically caved in the hole they were digging themselves into. The young people see them for what they are: making a huge shit storm about abortion and gay marriage, claiming family values and the importance of life, then defense of indefensible cases of pedophilia and misogyny by candidates and being against universal healthcare, despite Jesus literally healing people for free and having a message of peace and love.
One question I have never heard an answer to from those concerned over the "death" of Christianity - at what point was it "alive"? If it is "dying" now, when did it start "dying"?
It seems from the article that the author thinks that Christianity was alive before the 1960s and has been dying since, but you could go back to the 1960s and find people with the same sort of concerns then (in fact, these people are the antecedents to the current crop of religious conservatives) who believed that Christianity was better off before the New Deal. And then you could go back to the late 1920s and early 1930s and find people lamenting the rise of socialism, the newly birthed USSR, the scandalous flappers, post-World War One loss of faith, Scopes Monkey Trial, etc and talking about how Christianity was in better shape back at the end of the 19th century when all the godly monarchs were still around, etc. And a similar thing in the 1890s, and so and so on.
You would really need to go back to the Reformation (either before or after depending on whether the concerned Christian is Catholic or Protestant) to find anything that could credibly be claimed to be the high water mark of Christianity in society, and it's all been downhill since then. So this question, to my mind, really boils down to "how do we reset centuries of social change" (or as non-religious people like me call it, "progress") and get back to something more like Europe in the late 15th or early 16th century, and then come up with a way of preventing people from going down this terrible path of Enlightenment and personal liberty again. If that's not the case, then when was the high-water mark? Or if there never was one, how can we say that the current state of Christianity is any better or worse than any previous state?