On April 30, Rachel Held Evans wrote another piece in which she says that the key to attracting millennials back to church is not about trying to make church cool. Indeed, she contends that the effort to make church hipper has the potential to do more harm than good with young adults. Evans cites research indicating that 67 percent of millennials prefer a "classic" church over a "trendy" church.
All of that may be true, but I think it may miss the main point. In a response to a similar column by Evans two years ago, David Hayward said that the millennials he knows just don't care about church--it does not appear in the scope of their needs. I think he's on to something.
I used to be a fan of The West Wing, a TV show which gave viewers a behind the scenes look at the presidency of fictional president Jeb Bartlet, played by Martin Sheen. In an episode during Bartlet's reelection campaign, one of Bartlet's consultants urged him to support a constitutional amendment against flag burning. The consultant was convinced that such a stance would garner Bartlett a lot of votes because polling indicated that an overwhelming percentage of Americans supported an amendment against flag burning.
Later in the episode, however, another consultant revealed that, in addition to measuring support for a flag burning amendment, she had also measured the passion of respondents concerning the issue. It turned out that most Americans surveyed would claim support for an amendment against flag burning but few really cared one way or the other about the issue.
I suspect the same may be true with the research that Evans cites. Most millennials may say to a pollster that they prefer a "classic" church to a "trendy" church. But my sense is that most of that majority doesn't care much about any church of any persuasion. If such a large majority of millennials are so enamored with classic/traditional churches, then why aren't they packing the pews of such churches (because, in most cases, they aren't)?
Of course, we must not paint with too broad a brush. Many millennials care deeply about the church. Many millennials returned to church specifically because they found a trendy church that they like. Many millennials don't have to return to church because they never left.
While millennials aren't a monolithic lot, there's lots of research suggesting they are are leaving the church in large numbers. Church "style" considerations are not inconsequential in responding to this concern. But maybe a higher priority involves more conversations with millennials about the fundamental nature of the church.
Have we forgotten how radical and exciting the body of Christ is in its essence? That's a good subject for another blog entry or maybe two. Meanwhile, should we expect millennials (or anyone else) to care about the style of the meetings of a body that they don't really care about in the first place?
Monday, June 22, 2015
Thursday, April 9, 2015
An uncomfortable intersection
Are there many people out there in the U.S. who now who
think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea? That's the legislation, by
the way, that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender or national origin. I have no doubt that there are still some in this nation
who are miffed that discrimination in these categories is now barred by law.
But not many, right? Don't the overwhelming majority of people in this land now
agree that this landmark legislation was a good idea?
Actually we have long albeit uneven history of defending certain rights in the U.S. After all, this country pioneered the enshrinement of basic rights with the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Certainly this is not the only nation to advocate equality for its citizens and our record on civil rights has not always been glowing by any stretch. But when we decide to grant a certain right to the people then we tend to get pretty worked up about any violation of that right.
This nation was the first in history to set forth religious liberty as a basic human right in its founding documents. It goes without saying that adherents to a particular religion tend to be zealous for the beliefs of their faith. Any infringement of religious freedom is typically met with passionate opposition.
Actually we have long albeit uneven history of defending certain rights in the U.S. After all, this country pioneered the enshrinement of basic rights with the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Certainly this is not the only nation to advocate equality for its citizens and our record on civil rights has not always been glowing by any stretch. But when we decide to grant a certain right to the people then we tend to get pretty worked up about any violation of that right.
This nation was the first in history to set forth religious liberty as a basic human right in its founding documents. It goes without saying that adherents to a particular religion tend to be zealous for the beliefs of their faith. Any infringement of religious freedom is typically met with passionate opposition.
Now we have a controversy over Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (RFRA) recently passed in Indiana and Arkansas (and there is a similar bill proposed here in North Carolina). Critics say these measures allow businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians. Supporters say these laws protect religious liberty.
This is exactly why the remaining debate concerning homosexuality and particularly same-sex marriage has the potential to be especially intense and difficult in this culture.
Many of those who support same-sex marriage see it as a civil rights issue. Many of those who oppose same-sex marriage see it as a religious issue. Emotions run high among those who believe their civil rights or the civil rights of those they love have been violated. Emotions run high among those who believe they are being forced to abandon their religious beliefs.
I'm concerned that this debate and the actions surrounding it could get really ugly. What am I talking about? It has already gotten pretty ugly.
Do you remember or do you know the history surrounding the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It got seriously ugly at times. Deadly ugly. In that case the intersection was between equality and a long tradition of bigotry. Sure, some tried to defend ongoing racial discrimination on religious grounds, but those arguments were always faulty and shrill.
The debate over same-sex marriage involves an intersection between supporters who see their position as an matter of equality and detractors who see their position as a matter of religion. Actually, there are many defenders of same-sex marriage who build their arguments on religious grounds. In that case the intersection is between opposing religious views and I'm guessing that we all know how messy religious wars can be.
My concern here is not to take a side. I'm just wondering about the answer to this question: Can we navigate such a highly charged debate without doing serious damage to one one another? Can we talk about it without using words that wound and create perhaps irreconcilable differences between family members, friends, church members, co-workers, etc.? Can we keep our actions in support of our respective positions peaceful? Can we strive to understand one another before jumping immediately to attempts to marginalize one another?
Maybe my concern is overblown. After all, the governors of Indiana and Arkansas sought changes in the laws in question in order to address the concerns that have been raised. Governor McCrory has expressed his displeasure with the RFRA proposed here in North Carolina and some legislators whose support was assumed have distanced themselves from it. Interestingly this political back peddling happened not when the LGBT community complained but when big business interests got their backs.
Be that as it may, the apparently quick rise and fall of these laws, proposed or enacted, may be a signal that opinions on same-sex marriage have shifted to the degree that opponents can expect much less hope of success than in the recent past. Yet I remain concerned that there are still large numbers of people in this country gathered at an uncomfortable and possibly dangerous intersection.
I pray that we find ways to love our neighbors as we navigate this intersection.
I'm concerned that this debate and the actions surrounding it could get really ugly. What am I talking about? It has already gotten pretty ugly.
Do you remember or do you know the history surrounding the debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964? It got seriously ugly at times. Deadly ugly. In that case the intersection was between equality and a long tradition of bigotry. Sure, some tried to defend ongoing racial discrimination on religious grounds, but those arguments were always faulty and shrill.
The debate over same-sex marriage involves an intersection between supporters who see their position as an matter of equality and detractors who see their position as a matter of religion. Actually, there are many defenders of same-sex marriage who build their arguments on religious grounds. In that case the intersection is between opposing religious views and I'm guessing that we all know how messy religious wars can be.
My concern here is not to take a side. I'm just wondering about the answer to this question: Can we navigate such a highly charged debate without doing serious damage to one one another? Can we talk about it without using words that wound and create perhaps irreconcilable differences between family members, friends, church members, co-workers, etc.? Can we keep our actions in support of our respective positions peaceful? Can we strive to understand one another before jumping immediately to attempts to marginalize one another?
Maybe my concern is overblown. After all, the governors of Indiana and Arkansas sought changes in the laws in question in order to address the concerns that have been raised. Governor McCrory has expressed his displeasure with the RFRA proposed here in North Carolina and some legislators whose support was assumed have distanced themselves from it. Interestingly this political back peddling happened not when the LGBT community complained but when big business interests got their backs.
Be that as it may, the apparently quick rise and fall of these laws, proposed or enacted, may be a signal that opinions on same-sex marriage have shifted to the degree that opponents can expect much less hope of success than in the recent past. Yet I remain concerned that there are still large numbers of people in this country gathered at an uncomfortable and possibly dangerous intersection.
I pray that we find ways to love our neighbors as we navigate this intersection.
Tuesday, June 24, 2014
I've got good news and bad news ...
The good news is that charitable giving was up last year; the bad news is that donations to churches dropped ... again.
Apparently Giving USA's annual report on charitable giving in the United States was released last week, but I just found out about it this morning. Contributions to charities increased by 4.4 percent in 2013 as compared to 2012 but remained lower than pre-recession levels. In 2007 (before the recession) Americans donated $349.50 billion to charitable causes while they gave $335.17 billion last year. However, since the end of the recession in 2009, contributions to charities have increased 12.3 percent.
On the other hand, giving to churches has continued to dwindle. In 2010, 35 percent of charitable giving was channeled to churches. In 2011, the percentage fell to 32 percent and last year it was down to 31 percent.
As disheartening as these numbers are for those who support church work, there was another figure that really grabbed my attention. According to Gregg Carlson, chair of the Giving USA Foundation, just over a decade ago, churches received over 57 percent of total charitable giving in this country. As of last year, again, that percentage was down to 31 percent.
That's obviously a huge shift in giving patterns in this nation just in the last 10 years. Carlson says that Giving USA attributes this shrinking percentage to the ongoing nationwide decline in church attendance that has continued for years, and this is, no doubt, a big factor. But aren't these trends (declining church attendance and declining giving to churches) indicative of a more fundamental change?
It's clear that, generally, church involvement in the traditional sense just isn't as important to Americans as it used to be. This isn't a new message--there has been abundant evidence for years that things have been moving in that direction. For the most part, within churches, we have done little more than tinker here and there with old formulas hoping that we might reverse these trends. Obviously that's not working in most cases.
I'm not trying to be the bearer of doom and gloom here. Make no mistake, I'm very confident about the future of the church. Jesus stated his intent to build his church and he said that not even the gates of Hades would prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). Christ's church will not only survive, it will succeed. However, the church may well look quite a bit different than many of us are used to going forward.
Meanwhile, traditional expressions of church continue to do a great deal of good in this country. People by the millions worship, support important mission causes, engage in spiritual formation, and form transformational relationships in churches that operate in traditional ways. The "old ways" of doing things in church largely remain a valid means of faithfulness to the New Testament ideal of Christian community. But there are new expressions of Christian community springing up in our culture that are very different yet equally valid.
It's not my purpose to explore these new expressions of church here. I'm just underscoring the obvious in light of a new bit of evidence. The church landscape is changing in this country and it's changing really fast.
That may be scary to many who are heavily invested in traditional expressions of church in this land. Yet I'm convinced that the command that Jesus gave to his followers in the gospels more than any other still echoes loudly through the Holy Spirit to his followers of this culture: Don't be afraid. In these fast-changing times, as individual followers and as part of the community of faith that is the church, remain faithful to the Lord along your journey of faith and don't be afraid.
Apparently Giving USA's annual report on charitable giving in the United States was released last week, but I just found out about it this morning. Contributions to charities increased by 4.4 percent in 2013 as compared to 2012 but remained lower than pre-recession levels. In 2007 (before the recession) Americans donated $349.50 billion to charitable causes while they gave $335.17 billion last year. However, since the end of the recession in 2009, contributions to charities have increased 12.3 percent.
On the other hand, giving to churches has continued to dwindle. In 2010, 35 percent of charitable giving was channeled to churches. In 2011, the percentage fell to 32 percent and last year it was down to 31 percent.
As disheartening as these numbers are for those who support church work, there was another figure that really grabbed my attention. According to Gregg Carlson, chair of the Giving USA Foundation, just over a decade ago, churches received over 57 percent of total charitable giving in this country. As of last year, again, that percentage was down to 31 percent.
That's obviously a huge shift in giving patterns in this nation just in the last 10 years. Carlson says that Giving USA attributes this shrinking percentage to the ongoing nationwide decline in church attendance that has continued for years, and this is, no doubt, a big factor. But aren't these trends (declining church attendance and declining giving to churches) indicative of a more fundamental change?
It's clear that, generally, church involvement in the traditional sense just isn't as important to Americans as it used to be. This isn't a new message--there has been abundant evidence for years that things have been moving in that direction. For the most part, within churches, we have done little more than tinker here and there with old formulas hoping that we might reverse these trends. Obviously that's not working in most cases.
I'm not trying to be the bearer of doom and gloom here. Make no mistake, I'm very confident about the future of the church. Jesus stated his intent to build his church and he said that not even the gates of Hades would prevail against it (Matt. 16:18). Christ's church will not only survive, it will succeed. However, the church may well look quite a bit different than many of us are used to going forward.
Meanwhile, traditional expressions of church continue to do a great deal of good in this country. People by the millions worship, support important mission causes, engage in spiritual formation, and form transformational relationships in churches that operate in traditional ways. The "old ways" of doing things in church largely remain a valid means of faithfulness to the New Testament ideal of Christian community. But there are new expressions of Christian community springing up in our culture that are very different yet equally valid.
It's not my purpose to explore these new expressions of church here. I'm just underscoring the obvious in light of a new bit of evidence. The church landscape is changing in this country and it's changing really fast.
That may be scary to many who are heavily invested in traditional expressions of church in this land. Yet I'm convinced that the command that Jesus gave to his followers in the gospels more than any other still echoes loudly through the Holy Spirit to his followers of this culture: Don't be afraid. In these fast-changing times, as individual followers and as part of the community of faith that is the church, remain faithful to the Lord along your journey of faith and don't be afraid.
Friday, June 20, 2014
The numbers don't lie, but neither do they tell the whole story
The total population of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida added together is a little over 50 million. That's also the number of displaced persons that were in our world in 2013 according to a U.N. report released today. That's the highest number of dislocated people since World War II. Half of these refugees are children.
The figure doesn't include those who escaped the recent violence in Iraq. I read that 500,000 fled the city of Mosul alone when jihadists overran that Iraqi city last week.
The numbers are staggering, but they do not come close to telling the true tale of woe of millions who have been forced to go on the run to find a safe place. They don't tell us about the squalid conditions in which many of them live. They don't tell us about the children begging and searching trash cans for scraps of food. They don't tell us about the human trafficking taking place in some refugee camps. They don't tell us of the children who have been stricken with diseases because their parents can't obtain basic immunizations for them. They don't tell us of trying to survive bitter cold and searing heat behind a piece of canvas or plastic.
Fifty million displaced people is a terrible number but the reality of the daily lives of many of these millions is much, much worse.
The figure doesn't include those who escaped the recent violence in Iraq. I read that 500,000 fled the city of Mosul alone when jihadists overran that Iraqi city last week.
The numbers are staggering, but they do not come close to telling the true tale of woe of millions who have been forced to go on the run to find a safe place. They don't tell us about the squalid conditions in which many of them live. They don't tell us about the children begging and searching trash cans for scraps of food. They don't tell us about the human trafficking taking place in some refugee camps. They don't tell us of the children who have been stricken with diseases because their parents can't obtain basic immunizations for them. They don't tell us of trying to survive bitter cold and searing heat behind a piece of canvas or plastic.
Fifty million displaced people is a terrible number but the reality of the daily lives of many of these millions is much, much worse.
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Respect and building bridges
In an article posted this afternoon at the Washington Post web page, NBA coach Doc Rivers tells the story about the incident that led him to stop having his teams pray before games. It was 1999 and Rivers was the head coach of the Orlando Magic. He happened to look up when the team was engaged in its normal pregame prayer and he saw that one player, Tariq Abdul-Wahad, a Muslim, had his arms folded and he appeared very uncomfortable.
Rivers describes himself as very religious and he grew up in the Second Baptist Church of Maywood, Illinois. He says that he has prayed on his knees every night from the time he was a child and he still does. Even so, before the next game, Rivers made a point of telling the team that there were differing religious views represented among them. Instead of the normal group prayer, he asked everyone to close their eyes and he encouraged the players and other coaches to take a moment to compose themselves and to pray silently or simply to meditate as they chose.
After the game, Abdul-Wahad came to Rivers with tears in his eyes and he hugged him and said, "Thank you. That is so important to me. No one has ever respected my religion. I'm going to give you everything I've got."
It seems to me that when Christians insist on making a show of praying in places where non-Christians are present that we run the risk of burning more bridges than we build. Certain settings present exceptions, to be sure. But in most cases when we leave unbelievers with little option but to participate, actively or passively, in a religious rite that is not their own then don't we, perhaps inadvertently, express a certain level of disrespect for them?
True faith can't be forced. Jesus rebuked his disciples every time they staked out a position of power. Sure, we Christians wish that everyone believed in Jesus. But Jesus didn't attract others to follow him by disrespecting them and I don't think his followers will either.
Rivers describes himself as very religious and he grew up in the Second Baptist Church of Maywood, Illinois. He says that he has prayed on his knees every night from the time he was a child and he still does. Even so, before the next game, Rivers made a point of telling the team that there were differing religious views represented among them. Instead of the normal group prayer, he asked everyone to close their eyes and he encouraged the players and other coaches to take a moment to compose themselves and to pray silently or simply to meditate as they chose.
After the game, Abdul-Wahad came to Rivers with tears in his eyes and he hugged him and said, "Thank you. That is so important to me. No one has ever respected my religion. I'm going to give you everything I've got."
It seems to me that when Christians insist on making a show of praying in places where non-Christians are present that we run the risk of burning more bridges than we build. Certain settings present exceptions, to be sure. But in most cases when we leave unbelievers with little option but to participate, actively or passively, in a religious rite that is not their own then don't we, perhaps inadvertently, express a certain level of disrespect for them?
True faith can't be forced. Jesus rebuked his disciples every time they staked out a position of power. Sure, we Christians wish that everyone believed in Jesus. But Jesus didn't attract others to follow him by disrespecting them and I don't think his followers will either.
Monday, May 5, 2014
Government instructions on how to pray
The Supreme court, in a divided 5-4 decision, today upheld the practice of public prayer before town board meetings, rejecting the notion that overwhelmingly Christian invocations violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. There is a lot that I could say about this ruling, and I probably will. However, for the time being, I found it very interesting that Justice Anthony Kennedy, in his majority opinion, gave some Supreme Court guidelines for appropriate and inappropriate prayers for opening government meetings.
According to Justice Kennedy, prayer that is "solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends" is okay. (I suppose in future court cases we might look for the high court to become arbiters of what constitutes "solemn and respectful tone.") On the other hand, prayers that do things like "preach conversion" are not okay.
That's one thing about government sanctioned prayer. In the end the government starts telling you what to pray and how to pray it.
According to Justice Kennedy, prayer that is "solemn and respectful in tone, that invites lawmakers to reflect upon shared ideals and common ends" is okay. (I suppose in future court cases we might look for the high court to become arbiters of what constitutes "solemn and respectful tone.") On the other hand, prayers that do things like "preach conversion" are not okay.
That's one thing about government sanctioned prayer. In the end the government starts telling you what to pray and how to pray it.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Is it fair to lump all Baptists together like that?
The members of Westboro Baptist Church are up to their normal evil. On Saturday they engaged in one of their famous homophobic protests at the University of Missouri. They stood outside the basketball arena in conjunction with a home game holding signs proclaiming hatred and violence against gays and lesbians because the entire Missouri football team was scheduled to be recognized at halftime. A few days ago Michael Sam, a star defensive player for Missouri and a NFL prospect, announced that he is gay.
I doubt that news organizations would have reported Westboro's latest antics except for what the students did in response. They turned their backs to the small group of protesters and formed a human shield. Then they sang the Missouri alma mater. So the protesters could not be seen or heard because of the actions of the students.
I really like what those students did. They didn't get in the faces of the Westboro protesters. They didn't make obscene gestures toward them or trade the church members' curses with their own. They simply turned their backs on them and drowned them out. Nice work!
But the main reason I bring up the latest Westboro protest is the way Yahoo Sports reported it. Assistant Editor Kyle Ringo didn't mention the name of the church in his article on the incident. Apparently he didn't want to give the Westboro folks any of the attention that they obviously sought.
I initially saw the news about the protest at Yahoo Sports and I assumed that Westboro was behind it. However, I had to go to other news outlets to confirm this.
I can't blame Ringo for attempting to deny Westboro another moment in the spotlight. I would be for nearly anything that thwarts the group in its hateful agenda. However, I'm concerned that Ringo might have unwittingly lumped all Baptists with Westboro Baptist in his approach.
Consider this line from the article: "Members of a Baptist church stood outside the arena holding signs that condemned the community's and school's support for Sam." In an article that nowhere mentions the specific church, Ringo's approach leaves the impression that this sort of activity could be typical of members of any Baptist church.
There is no question that there is plenty of homophobia to go around in many Baptist circles. There has been, unfortunately, no shortage of Baptist leaders who have, in recent years, grabbed headlines for spewing hatred against against the LGBTQ community. That said, is it fair to lump all Baptists with the singularly virulent homophobia of Westboro Baptist Church?
In a USA Today piece on Saturday's protest, there are photos showing the Westboro protesters carrying signs declaring messages typical of their rallies such as "Death penalty 4 [homosexuals]" and "God hates [homosexuals]." Many, many Baptists do not share such sentiments.
I have a Baptist pastor friend who says that Baptists are like dogs. (Careful, don't jump to any conclusions before I finish his thought.) "If I tell you that I have a dog," he says, "I haven't told you much unless I tell you what kind of dog it is." Dogs come in a multitude of shapes, colors, sizes and personalities and it is much the same with Baptists.
Some Baptists are welcoming and affirming of members of the LGBTQ community. Many Baptists are welcoming but not affirming. Many Baptists are neither welcoming nor affirming.
On the face of it, I don't think it's fair to lump all Baptists with the members of Westboro Baptist Church because many Baptists abhor their vile strain of homophobia. That said, to the degree that there is any hatred toward the LGBTQ community among Baptists, it is too much. After all, we follow the one who said the Greatest Commandment, the most important thing we do, includes loving our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus listed no exceptions to this commandment.
======
Addendum: I emailed this post to Kyle Ringo and he changed the article to include the name of the church.
.
I doubt that news organizations would have reported Westboro's latest antics except for what the students did in response. They turned their backs to the small group of protesters and formed a human shield. Then they sang the Missouri alma mater. So the protesters could not be seen or heard because of the actions of the students.
I really like what those students did. They didn't get in the faces of the Westboro protesters. They didn't make obscene gestures toward them or trade the church members' curses with their own. They simply turned their backs on them and drowned them out. Nice work!
But the main reason I bring up the latest Westboro protest is the way Yahoo Sports reported it. Assistant Editor Kyle Ringo didn't mention the name of the church in his article on the incident. Apparently he didn't want to give the Westboro folks any of the attention that they obviously sought.
I initially saw the news about the protest at Yahoo Sports and I assumed that Westboro was behind it. However, I had to go to other news outlets to confirm this.
I can't blame Ringo for attempting to deny Westboro another moment in the spotlight. I would be for nearly anything that thwarts the group in its hateful agenda. However, I'm concerned that Ringo might have unwittingly lumped all Baptists with Westboro Baptist in his approach.
Consider this line from the article: "Members of a Baptist church stood outside the arena holding signs that condemned the community's and school's support for Sam." In an article that nowhere mentions the specific church, Ringo's approach leaves the impression that this sort of activity could be typical of members of any Baptist church.
There is no question that there is plenty of homophobia to go around in many Baptist circles. There has been, unfortunately, no shortage of Baptist leaders who have, in recent years, grabbed headlines for spewing hatred against against the LGBTQ community. That said, is it fair to lump all Baptists with the singularly virulent homophobia of Westboro Baptist Church?
In a USA Today piece on Saturday's protest, there are photos showing the Westboro protesters carrying signs declaring messages typical of their rallies such as "Death penalty 4 [homosexuals]" and "God hates [homosexuals]." Many, many Baptists do not share such sentiments.
I have a Baptist pastor friend who says that Baptists are like dogs. (Careful, don't jump to any conclusions before I finish his thought.) "If I tell you that I have a dog," he says, "I haven't told you much unless I tell you what kind of dog it is." Dogs come in a multitude of shapes, colors, sizes and personalities and it is much the same with Baptists.
Some Baptists are welcoming and affirming of members of the LGBTQ community. Many Baptists are welcoming but not affirming. Many Baptists are neither welcoming nor affirming.
On the face of it, I don't think it's fair to lump all Baptists with the members of Westboro Baptist Church because many Baptists abhor their vile strain of homophobia. That said, to the degree that there is any hatred toward the LGBTQ community among Baptists, it is too much. After all, we follow the one who said the Greatest Commandment, the most important thing we do, includes loving our neighbors as ourselves. Jesus listed no exceptions to this commandment.
======
Addendum: I emailed this post to Kyle Ringo and he changed the article to include the name of the church.
.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
